# Correlating Newtonian Model with Einstein's GR

#### hansda

Valued Senior Member
Newtonian model and Einstein's GR are two major models being successfully utilized in Physics. Though these are very useful; their basic concepts are different. In Newtonian model a mass changes movement due to force. Whereas in Einstein's GR, curvature of space-time decides the movement of a mass. Even though these two models are different, i feel these two models can be correlated. These two models can be correlated through my theory.

See the question (What is the motion of a particle at any instant of time?) in II.6) of my paper at https://www.academia.edu/31457696/A_Mathematical_Theory_of_Success . Here I answered this question in Newtonian model. My answer is that, this motion at any instant of time will depend on IFS or IRF. If this question is answered in Einstein's GR, the answer would be curvature of space-time caused by the particle at that instant of time.

As the motion of a particle is same or common in both these Newtonian Model and Einstein's GR, we can say that there is some correlation between IFS/IRF and curvature of space-time.

"Success" isn't "everything", hansda. The pdf I saw was five pages long, and that included the bibiography. What else have you ever written about, other than on sciforums, if you don't mind my asking?

"Every action has got a unique technique." is not a statement appropriate to a study of physics, or math.

You get partial math credit for an expression about how to add forces vectorially. That's the only math I saw that was part of a coherent math or physics theory of any kind, and that is hardly an original idea.

Newtonian model and Einstein's GR are two major models being successfully utilized in Physics. Though these are very useful; their basic concepts are different. In Newtonian model a mass changes movement due to force. Whereas in Einstein's GR, curvature of space-time decides the movement of a mass. Even though these two models are different, i feel these two models can be correlated. These two models can be correlated through my theory.

See the question (What is the motion of a particle at any instant of time?) in II.6) of my paper at https://www.academia.edu/31457696/A_Mathematical_Theory_of_Success . Here I answered this question in Newtonian model. My answer is that, this motion at any instant of time will depend on IFS or IRF. If this question is answered in Einstein's GR, the answer would be curvature of space-time caused by the particle at that instant of time.

As the motion of a particle is same or common in both these Newtonian Model and Einstein's GR, we can say that there is some correlation between IFS/IRF and curvature of space-time.

II.11. Of your academia upload appears to be THE crux. You have defined lot of forces, that's fine, but there appears to be some inherent problem with II.11.

Secondly, say I set my targets, I call them SMT and then on completion I record the completion of assigned work against each target, I call it COAW. If my COAW = SMT then I have achieved success. How does it matter how many dust particles I moved or how many stones I unturned or turned in the process??

Uniqueness of process also can be full of perspective. Everyday morning I get up, succeed in my morning act, I see nothing unique about the process, and this is same for all, all the days, till the body system deteriorates.

There is no uniqueness in an uneventful work day in the life of an ATC or a pilot, process followed is invariably same everyday. You can always argue, fuel was less or more, one radar was non functional, one runway was under maintenance, equipment was changed, special movements of crafts, emergency situation, they may make the situation different but nothing unique about the process as such. The uniqueness would be for a pilot to find out at 36000 ft with 300 passengers on board that lo there is no fuel in the aircraft, and then manage to glide down the aircraft safely to ground.

Force of desire, perseverance, hardwork, resourcefulness, feasibility of tasks, ability....These determine the success to a large extent, not some imaginary force on dust particle.

"Success" isn't "everything", hansda.

I have not said that. I dont know how you have made this conclusion. What I have said is that, I have developed a theory/math which can explain success. This theory/math also can explain every other action or any action. So this theory also can be considered as a ToE. This does not mean that "success is everything".

The pdf I saw was five pages long, and that included the bibiography. What else have you ever written about, other than on sciforums, if you don't mind my asking?

I made one small invention about a flapping mechanism. This is published in a Patent Journal in India. I named this invention, "hansdacraft". Googling this term you can read about my invention.

"Every action has got a unique technique." is not a statement appropriate to a study of physics, or math.

Why you think so. Whats wrong with this statement. I have a mathematics for the term "technique".

You get partial math credit for an expression about how to add forces vectorially.

Perhaps you are talking about IRF. Atleast you are able to see some math in my paper.

That's the only math I saw that was part of a coherent math or physics theory of any kind, and that is hardly an original idea.

I used the principles of set-theory to explain my math. Check the list of "keywords". Many new terminologies are proposed there.

What I have said is that, I have developed a theory/math which can explain success.
But it doesn't.

This theory/math also can explain every other action or any action.
But it doesn't.

So this theory also can be considered as a ToE.
Apart from the fact that, as I think I've mentioned, your "theory" doesn't work as advertised could you tell me how it applies to gravity? Or quantum mechanics?
What results can you derive from this "theory" of yours?

I made one small invention about a flapping mechanism. This is published in a Patent Journal in India. I named this invention, "hansdacraft". Googling this term you can read about my invention.
And the abstract of that "invention" shows that you don't know how birds produce lift.
So I'd say it's fairly safe to assume your invention isn't worth much.

Thanks.

You have defined lot of forces, that's fine, but there appears to be some inherent problem with II.11.

What exactly is the inherent problem you observed.

Secondly, say I set my targets, I call them SMT and then on completion I record the completion of assigned work against each target, I call it COAW. If my COAW = SMT then I have achieved success. How does it matter how many dust particles I moved or how many stones I unturned or turned in the process??

Here your COAW corresponds to TDA and SMT corresponds to TSA.

Uniqueness of process also can be full of perspective. Everyday morning I get up, succeed in my morning act, I see nothing unique about the process, and this is same for all, all the days, till the body system deteriorates.

Every morning our earth is also changing its location. Though the same action is being repeated, they are repeated at different timing. So they can be considered as different action. Unique means which cannot be repeated.

There is no uniqueness in an uneventful work day in the life of an ATC or a pilot, process followed is invariably same everyday. You can always argue, fuel was less or more, one radar was non functional, one runway was under maintenance, equipment was changed, special movements of crafts, emergency situation, they may make the situation different but nothing unique about the process as such. The uniqueness would be for a pilot to find out at 36000 ft with 300 passengers on board that lo there is no fuel in the aircraft, and then manage to glide down the aircraft safely to ground.

Perhaps you are explaining unique ability of pilot. I was explaining uniqueness of any action.

Force of desire, perseverance, hardwork, resourcefulness, feasibility of tasks, ability....These determine the success to a large extent, not some imaginary force on dust particle.

I am not denying this but i was only focusing on the math part of success.

I dont know if you have read my paper. The link is mentioned in the OP.

Apart from the fact that, as I think I've mentioned, your "theory" doesn't work as advertised could you tell me how it applies to gravity? Or quantum mechanics?

Gravity is a force in Newtonian model. In quantum mechanics also various forces are working on a particle to cause its movement. My theory also deals with various forces being applied to a particle.

What results can you derive from this "theory" of yours?

Essence of my theory is that, every action has got its own CRFS. Basically it defines the trajectory of a particle in terms of force with the principles of set-theory.

And the abstract of that "invention" shows that you don't know how birds produce lift.
So I'd say it's fairly safe to assume your invention isn't worth much.

Perhaps complete paper is not uploaded there.

Last edited:
I dont know if you have read my paper.
The fact that I commented on it (and the associated fact that I felt myself qualified to make those those comments) should have been a clue.

Gravity is a force in Newtonian model. In quantum mechanics also various forces are working on a particle to cause its movement.

My theory also deals with various forces being applied to a particle.
Allegedly.

Essence of my theory is that, every action has got its own CRFS.
So what?
What RESULTS do you get from applying this "theory".
All you've given here is a blanket claim.
Please, use your "theory" to derive something in real-world physics and show us how that result compares to "ordinary" physics.

Perhaps complete paper is not uploaded there.
Largely irrelevant: unless the body of the patent directly contradicts what is stated in the abstract.

What RESULTS do you get from applying this "theory".

See my earlier post. I have edited my answer there. It defines the trajectory of a particle.

See my earlier post. I have edited my answer there. It defines the trajectory of a particle.
You apparently do not understand the difference between just making a claim (which you are doing) and demonstrating that your "theory" can give results.

A 10 kg cannonball is shot out of a cannon at 500 km/hr and at a 45 deg angle on level ground, how far does the cannonball travel before it hits the ground according to your "TOE"? Please show all work.

If you cannot do that then your "theory" is what is commonly called unevidenced idle speculation.

Good luck.

See my earlier post. I have edited my answer there. It defines the trajectory of a particle.

My theory also deals with various forces being applied to a particle.
Science already has good a theory for "dealing with forces being applied to a particle". What made you believe that area of science was in need of revision or redundancy? No one else seems to think so. This is the heart of my critique of your theory.

Science knowledge is not a structure that is intended to support redundant theories to explain the same phenomena. Okay, okay, you've definitely got me on the ropes there, but, you know what I mean. I hope.

I have a suggestion. What an esoteric quality like "success" needs is a TAXONOMY, not a theory.

Success in one respect may be a failure in another. You would need at least two thories to reconcile this idea, unless you did a taxonomy first, and then analyzed various kinds of successes based on whatever taxonomy you came up with.

I once did a similar thing with Bloom's taxonomy of cognition. Realizing that cognition was not even possible without ignorance, I made myself a taxonomy of ignorance to accompany Bloom's ideas. I never published it, but suffice it to say, it would have raised more than a few eyebrows in places like education, where Bloom's model reigns supreme, and where it has been extended to include meta cognition, for those individuals who like to make meta-models for the next evolutionary mode of learning. How very, very trendy. Yuck!

Curvature of space time is a useful model, but is not a basic foundation to General Relativity.

For centuries (even before Newton), it was known that inertial mass & gravitational mass were equivalent. For those not familiar with the above notion.

Inertial mass relates to resistance to a change in the velocity of an object.

Gravitational mass relates to the effects on mass due to gravity.​

Einstein recognized that this equivalence was an indication of profound significance. His thoughts relating to this equivalence led to his theory of General Relativity.

Curvature of space time is a useful model, but is not a basic foundation to General Relativity.

For centuries (even before Newton), it was known that inertial mass & gravitational mass were equivalent. For those not familiar with the above notion.

Inertial mass relates to resistance to a change in the velocity of an object.

Gravitational mass relates to the effects on mass due to gravity.​

Einstein recognized that this equivalence was an indication of profound significance. His thoughts relating to this equivalence led to his theory of General Relativity.

May be you are correct. I was just following the GR principle that, 'mass tells spacetime, how to curve and curvature of spacetime time tells mass, how to move'.

Now see the question in II.6 of my paper. Try to answer this question in GR. Lets see, what would be your answer.

I have a suggestion. What an esoteric quality like "success" needs is a TAXONOMY, not a theory.

See, Einstein also probably tried to develope a math for success. There was also another attempt to develope a math for success, as i pointed out in another thread.

Success in one respect may be a failure in another. You would need at least two thories to reconcile this idea, unless you did a taxonomy first, and then analyzed various kinds of successes based on whatever taxonomy you came up with.

I dont know if you have read my paper completely. For this purpose you can see the significance of TDA and TSA, as mentioned in my paper in II.11 and II.7 .

Science already has good a theory for "dealing with forces being applied to a particle". What made you believe that area of science was in need of revision or redundancy? No one else seems to think so. This is the heart of my critique of your theory.

Good thought. Criticisms are always welcome. Do you think, there are only 4(four) types of forces in the NATURE and no more?

....

I was just following the GR principle that, 'mass tells spacetime, how to curve and curvature of spacetime time tells mass, how to move'.

....

The above is not a principle of GR. It is a restatement of a catchy but misleading quote from Wheeler. I think it went more succinctly like, "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve." but that is just from memory. I say misleading because it has become the basis of a belief that Spacetime has some inherent substance of its own, rather than a geometric description...

The point is this, GR and the terms Spacetime and Spacetime curvature, as used within the context of GR, are descriptive not causative. GR describes the observable dynamics of gravitation. It does not define an underlying cause or mechanism.

OnlyMe:
Thanks for your views. Nice to see your post after a very long time.

The above is not a principle of GR. It is a restatement of a catchy but misleading quote from Wheeler. I think it went more succinctly like, "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve." but that is just from memory. I say misleading because it has become the basis of a belief that Spacetime has some inherent substance of its own, rather than a geometric description...

Maybe you are right.

The point is this, GR and the terms Spacetime and Spacetime curvature, as used within the context of GR, are descriptive not causative. GR describes the observable dynamics of gravitation. It does not define an underlying cause or mechanism.

What I am saying is that, see the question in II.6 of my paper. What will be the answer of this question in GR? or, This question can not be answered in GR?

Last edited:
....

What I am saying is that, see the question in II.6 of my paper. What will be the answer of this question in GR?

I have not read your paper and was responding to the specifics of the comment I quoted. I seldom register/signup in response to an information request, to access any online document.

If the question you refer to is embodied by the following from your first post, "See the question (What is the motion of a particle at any instant of time?) in II.6)of my paper.., ", it seems a vacant question to begin with, since there is no motion of any kind associated with an instant of time. A particle's or object's location may be determined at an instant of time (perhaps not any instant, depending on the information available and inherent limits of certainty). Motion requires a continuous observation of locations over a series of instances.

Still my point re GR remains, that GR is a theory that describes the dynamics of gravitation, not the underlying cause. It is a layman and even to some extent not so lay mistake, to attempt to interpre that Wheeler quote taken out of the greater context. It implies that Spacetime, an inherently 4D mathematical geometry, has some fundamental independent substance... that the geometric description of the dynamics (what we observe), is the cause of what we observe.