# Law of Dynamic Universal Gravitation

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by TonyYuan, Jul 20, 2023.

1. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852

1. Any object M with mass has a gravitational field, and the gravitational field moves with M.

2. The energy of M is transmitted outward in the form of longitudinal waves in the gravitational field.

3. Newtonian gravitation refers to the force produced by the object subjected to the longitudinal wave of the gravitational field.

4. The speed of the longitudinal wave in the gravitational field is much greater than the speed of light, but it must be limited.

5. There is a chasing effect between the object and the longitudinal wave of the gravitational field, which will cause the mechanical energy of the planet's orbit to increase slowly, thus making the planet's orbit slowly accelerate and expand.

6. If there is a relative velocity between M and the gravitational field from MX, then M will disturb the gravitational field of MX, so that a gravitational wave will be generated around M, which is the transverse wave of the gravitational field of MX, and it will be superimposed on the gravitational field of MX movement velocity.

7. The speed of gravitational waves is equal to the speed of light, and there is a Doppler effect between M and the surrounding gravitational waves, so that the gravitational wave density around M is no longer uniform, showing anisotropy.

8. The gravitational wave also has a force effect on the object, but the gravitational wave will not change the planetary mechanical energy conservation, but the anisotropy of the gravitational wave will cause the precession of the planetary orbit.

9. The universal gravitation under the joint action of gravitational field longitudinal wave and gravitational wave is complete, we call it dynamic universal gravitation.

3. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
39,245
Please show how you can derive the Newtonian force equation using the postulates of your theory.

Messages:
852

7. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
39,245
Has that paper been accepted for publication in any peer-reviewed journal?

8. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,371
Re your (2), if the energy of object M is transmitted outward by these waves, M must lose energy. This should lead to detectable changes. Does it get colder? Spin more slowly? Or what?

9. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
Of course it has been accepted.

10. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
That's a good question, so do you think a magnetic field would cause a magnet to lose mass?

11. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,371
No, because it does not involve waves. It is a static field. But you say an object with mass creates waves and you also say these waves transmit energy, as indeed all travelling waves do.

So what is your answer to my question? Energy is a conserved quantity, after all. So if energy is, as you say, radiated by the body, it loses energy and this should be manifest in a change in its properties. Does the object get colder, or spin less rapidly, or lose mass, or what?

Last edited: Jul 21, 2023
origin likes this.
12. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
My theory is based on Newton's gravitational theory, so it also integrates the concept of gravitational field. Newton's gravitational theory is indeed completely different from Einstein's space-time curved gravitational theory.

The modified Newton's gravitational equation can accurately calculate the orbital data of the planets in the solar system, and I just did it. If you are interested, you can use my theory to explain other astrophysical phenomena, and there may be surprising breakthroughs.

13. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,871
That was a very good question and I was mildly interested in what Tony's reply would be.
What a shock, he didn't answer your question, he just changed the subject!

James R, billvon and exchemist like this.
14. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,371
So does the body lose energy, Tony?

This is a pretty fundamental prediction of your theory. So we ought to be able to test it, by looking for this predicted decrease in energy of bodies with mass. Isn't that so, Tony?

15. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,371
Yes, I don't think he can answer it.

He's got this wrong idea that a field involves waves, hence his question about magnetism. But as ever, considering the energy of the scenario is a powerful way to analyse it - and in this case it exposes the fact that it can't work. But I'll be amused to see if he finds a way to address my question, or whether he just continues to try to ignore it.

16. ### Janus58Valued Senior Member

Messages:
2,388
"5. There is a chasing effect between the object and the longitudinal wave of the gravitational field, which will cause the mechanical energy of the planet's orbit to increase slowly, thus making the planet's orbit slowly accelerate and expand. "

This statement shows that your theory doesn't accurately describe orbital interactions.

GR predicts the opposite, that the orbit will shrink through the lose of orbital energy via gravitational radiation. The gravitational radiation from the finally stages of such a process is what we detected by LIGO. But even prior to that, we had already made observations of closely orbiting binary pairs that displayed this behavior of shrinking orbits that matched the predictions of GR.
So given the choice between a theory that accurately describes real life observation and one that doesn't, forgive me if I prefer the former.

17. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
39,245
In which journal was it published?

18. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
First of all, the gravitational field does not exist statically, and the spread of the gravitational field has a limited speed, although this speed is very huge. The spread of this field, I regard it as the longitudinal wave of the gravitational field.

The gravitational field expands around, which will definitely consume the energy (or mass) of the gravitational source. As for the speed of this consumption, I really don't know.

The magnetic field is a good analogy, because everyone is very familiar with the magnetic field. For the gravitational field, due to the existence of Einstein's space-time bending theory, the Newtonian gravitational field is always ignored.

I put forward a complete idea and used the revised gravitational equation to calculate the orbital data of the planets in the solar system. Fortunately, the data of the 8 planets I calculated were basically consistent with the astronomical observation data published by NASA.

19. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
Quantum mechanics is very interesting, especially the research on black body radiation, which directly promotes the development of quantum mechanics. These are theories developed based on physical experiments. It is a theory worthy of trust and continued research.

I think the best testing ground for gravitational research is the solar system. Planets and satellites are good research objects, and they provide us with the best answer to verify whether the gravitational equation is correct.

GR has never been able to calculate the orbital precession of the planets in the solar system. It cannot now and will not be able to do so in the future. Of course, in the hearts of GR believers, GR has already calculated the orbital data of the planets very accurately. Einstein is as omnipotent as God. (perhaps beyond God)

20. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
I had a discussion with James R about SR, but unfortunately James R got into confusion, his answers were inconsistent. But until now, James R has not realized that what got him into trouble was not because of his ignorance, but because SR is a self-contradictory thing.

21. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,871
I see you still cannot answer exchemist's question. That's understandable since your conjecture cannot give a sensible answer to the question.
Simply repeating the same unsupported statement over and over is not a winning strategy in a science discussion.

22. ### TonyYuanGravitational Fields and Gravitational WavesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
852
You can go and see how James R got into a mess. Why not face the problem? Can you answer the triplet paradox experiment question? Please give your answer if you can. If not, please wait quietly for Janus58's answer.

Newton is great, but he also experienced being attacked by various ignorant people after proposing the law of universal gravitation.

23. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,371
So Tony, does a massive body lose energy, or not, in your theory?