Relativistic Newtonian Gravity ?

Hiyas ,

Following up on John Schoenfield's idea I have a new modification which
I propose is a relativistic correction to Newtons's Universal Law of
Gravitation -


Fg = G m1 M2/ r^2

where

M2=m2/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2) with v relative to the m2 IRF ( m1 considered to be
at rest v=0 )

and m1 is understood to be in a IRF


so that the proposed law becomes


Fg = G [ m1 { m2/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2) } / r^2 ]


Comments ?

Best

"wavelength" wrote in message
...

Hiyas ,

Following up on John Schoenfield's idea

...is like performing an autopsy on a hallucination...

I have a new modification which
I propose is a relativistic correction to Newtons's Universal Law of
Gravitation -

The "relativistic correction" to Newtonian Gravitation involves a vector
field mathematically indistinguishable from "curvature," in which all
"orbits" become inertial paths *without* external forces (obeying Newton's
Laws of Motion). It is referred to briefly as "space-time curvature."


Schoenfield's 'work' reminds me of liberal politicians - when you examine it
closely there is no "there" there. There are no guiding principles, no
cohesive theory, and no supporting evidence.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

tadchem wrote in message
...

"wavelength" wrote in message
...

Hiyas ,

Following up on John Schoenfield's idea

..is like performing an autopsy on a hallucination...

I have a new modification which
I propose is a relativistic correction to Newtons's Universal Law of
Gravitation -

The "relativistic correction" to Newtonian Gravitation involves a vector
field mathematically indistinguishable from "curvature," in which all
"orbits" become inertial paths *without* external forces (obeying Newton's
Laws of Motion). It is referred to briefly as "space-time curvature."


Schoenfield's 'work' reminds me of liberal politicians - when you examine
it
closely there is no "there" there. There are no guiding principles, no
cohesive theory, and no supporting evidence.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA



Hiyas ,

Well I certainly have the lower limit correct which is Newton's UL. Of
course, we all know that the LF transformations only apply to
sub light reference frames and not light itself.

What I meant is that unlike going off in a different direction as
Einstien did with his geometry, Iam convinced that Newton's work - where,
for example, forces are retained, can be corrected for relativistic effects
since Newton wasnt aware of the finite speed of light.

Can anyone make any comments concerning the v 0 scenario of the above
equation as it relates to the observed phenomena and experimental evidence ?
SR definitely addresses a increase in mass for a moving IRF. The formula
Appears to account for this.

Best