Erm, because 8pi is the right value, and 100000 and 0.0000001 are not?
What do you mean by that exactly? If you mean that using those other values instead of 8pi also will lead to Newtonian physics, you would be incorrect: the resulting formulas would be similar, but off by various constant factors. In other words, you do not end up with Newtonian physics.
The only explanation I've been able to find so far is that it's 8pi because then it leads to Newtonian physics; it's a normalization of the theory in the Newtonian limit.
This has now been conclusively debunked by the link to that derivation I gave above. You can only argue that the choice of normalization is arbitrary, but it obviously matches what we see in nature. We can perhaps not derive it from the equations themselves, so we call it a "constant of nature" (for now).
Ah, so you now agree with me that one can derive Newtonian physics from GR. Good. Going back on topic: what's your opinion on hansda's claim that his text correlates Newtonian physics with GR?
So you have found a mistake in the derivation I posted a link to? Please point me to it!
Ok:
Well, both have to actually describe reality; their answers have to be right in order for the model to be useful. If you call that a forced connection, then yes.
This is clear: there has to be a constant there, because of dimensional analysis. The value cannot be derived from the theory (unless somebody can demonstrate otherwise), so we have to select some value that makes it match what we see in reality. This constant happens to match 8piG, so instead of inventing another constant, we simply write 8piG. Quite straight-forward, if you ask me.
Incorrect; it's due to reality.
This I already responded to in post #43.
So you haven't read his text, where he (allegedly) makes the connection between GR and Newtonian physics?
You haven't bothered to read hansda's text, so you are also guilty of this.
Please refrain from making unfounded assumptions about what I understand and what I don't. Even if they are conceptually different, that doesn't mean you can't derive one from the other.
You have shown a complete lack of arguments in support of the claim that it doesn't. In fact, you've dodged that question in this very post of yours.
"My" funny dimensional analysis? Please look it up; it's a well-establish principle in science, so it's not mine. But please explain to me why dimensional analysis is an "excuse".
No, you are the one claiming they are different; the burden of proof is on you. You list three differences between GR and Newtonian physics.
I never said that. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
I have managed to find this, by Sean Carroll: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/03/13/einstein-and-pi/
Please read the contents of the post, and follow the calculations for yourself.
The God acts like the classic anti-science troll, he likes to argue from a position of ignorance. Waste of time...
Judging on his/her behavior in the last couple of posts I get that feeling too, but I'll just engage him/her as (s)he is, and let the moderators worry about it.
My point is that hansda misled me when he said that his TOE explained the connection between Newtonian physics and GR.
False. Originally of course it wasn't brought up, but then the theory of relativity showed us about the geometry of spacetime, and we started interpreting Newtonian theory in that light too.
True, though perhaps not solely.
True.
True.
True.
Unclear. Often it's taken as such, but I don't think it's a requirement of it. The limited speed of gravity was known well before the theory of relativity came along, and I don't remember scientists claiming this debunk Newtonian physics.
But that has no bearing on whether one can derive Newtonian physics from GR. In fact, it signals the two are connected, in that in specific cases Newtonian physics is "good enough". I.e., GR is a more general case of Newtonian physics.