# Correlating Newtonian Model with Einstein's GR

No, except two less than upto the mark links, your argument is nothing but follow the authority.
Please stop accusing me of fallacies I did not commit. Did I say I believed the article because of the specific person that wrote it? No, I'm believing it because I went through the text and maths, and it convinced me it's correct.

You are still confused why 8piG.
Please stop making assumptions about my "confusion". Moreover, please explain to me why the contents of that link aren't any good. Point out the mistake(s).

Anyway now....

1. How a geometry of space time based theory reduces to a non geometry of spacetime based theory?

2. How a theory with c as gravity speed reduces to a theory with infinite speed of gravity?

3. How a theory where gravity is not a force reduces to a theory where gravity is a force?

On the 8piG you say..
I find that explanation quite unsatisfying. Anybodyknow of a better, more fundamental explanation?

You can always argue that confusion and unsatisfying are two different states of your understanding. I will let that pass.

Origin,

You can also attempt #62, more useful than making sidey comments.

Please stop accusing me of fallacies I did not commit.
You are learning what the rest of us already discovered. He is interested only in tearing others down; not contributing constructively.
The sooner you come to this conclusion, the faster this thread will get back on track, and the rest of us will join back in.
But no pressure.

Anyway now....

1. How a geometry of space time based theory reduces to a non geometry of spacetime based theory?
See one of the links I posted: the derivation is given in it.

2. How a theory with c as gravity speed reduces to a theory with infinite speed of gravity?
It can't. But for this question to make sense, you first have to explain why my answer to your question 6 is wrong.

3. How a theory where gravity is not a force reduces to a theory where gravity is a force?
See one of the links I posted: the derivation is given in it. I think it stops at the gravitational potential, but it's a quick one-liner to go from that to a force.

On the 8piG you say..
I don't know why you mean by this?

You can always argue that confusion and unsatisfying are two different states of your understanding. I will let that pass.
Is this an insult?

Also, I no longer am stuck with the unsatisfying answer, now that I found that other article I linked.

You are learning what the rest of us already discovered. He is interested only in tearing others down; not contributing constructively.
The sooner you come to this conclusion, the faster this thread will get back on track, and the rest of us will join back in.
But no pressure.

Why not tell Kittamaru whom are you referring in that thread.

By the way, you can also try #62.

You are learning what the rest of us already discovered. He is interested only in tearing others down; not contributing constructively.
The sooner you come to this conclusion, the faster this thread will get back on track, and the rest of us will join back in.
But no pressure.
Either (s)he starts contributing constructively, or the moderators will eventually be forced to let him/her go, so to speak. I'm only here to provide material for the decisions leading up to a resolution, and learn a few things myself in the mean time. For example, today I learned where the 8pi comes from!

Either (s)he starts contributing constructively, or the moderators will eventually be forced to let him/her go, so to speak. I'm only here to provide material for the decisions leading up to a resolution, and learn a few things myself in the mean time. For example, today I learned where the 8pi comes from!

Good, something learnt.

See one of the links I posted: the derivation is given in it.

It can't. But for this question to make sense, you first have to explain why my answer to your question 6 is wrong.

See one of the links I posted: the derivation is given in it. I think it stops at the gravitational potential, but it's a quick one-liner to go from that to a force.

I don't know why you mean by this?

Is this an insult?

Also, I no longer am stuck with the unsatisfying answer, now that I found that other article I linked.

This is the crux. You did not realise the incongruency of #1 to #3 in my post #62.

Both GR and Newtonian are conceptually different, the GR cannot lead to Newtonian because of incompatibility, but it is made to. That's what my original claim was.

Either (s)he starts contributing constructively, or the moderators will eventually be forced to let him/her go, so to speak. I'm only here to provide material for the decisions leading up to a resolution, and learn a few things myself in the mean time. For example, today I learned where the 8pi comes from!

What is constructive contribution here? You guys are trolling Hansda, he is here with his theory of Instantaneous Force for quite sometime, it is not even wrong, it is.... So by repeatedly writing basics again and again, you and couple of these guys are contributing constructively?

See, this exchange may have been a bit rude somewhere, frustrating to both, but you learnt something and you will learn something more. That seed is planted.

Either (s)he starts contributing constructively, or the moderators will eventually be forced to let him/her go,
Alas, not so.

What is constructive contribution here? You guys are trolling Hansda,
No. Showing someone where and how they are wrong is not trolling.

. So by repeatedly writing basics again and again, you and couple of these guys are contributing constructively?
Yes. The premise of the thread is erroneous. The constructive thing to do is to show the OP where he is wrong and why by showing him correct physics (essentially by teaching him the basics).

It's not our fault if he wilfully chooses to be oblivious to the very thing he's studying. But it is our right and obligation to correct it - for him AND for other readers. We have actually been fairly patient; this particular line of thought from the OP has been going on for multiple threads.

Anyway, I'm going to step back from the meta-thread in hopes of not getting (further) off-track.

Alas, not so.

No. Showing someone where and how they are wrong is not trolling.

Yes. The premise of the thread is erroneous. The constructive thing to do is to show the OP where he is wrong and why by showing him correct physics (essentially by teaching him the basics).

It's not our fault if he wilfully chooses to be oblivious to the very thing he's studying. But it is our right and obligation to correct it - for him AND for other readers. We have actually been fairly patient; this particular line of thought from the OP has been going on for multiple threads.

Anyway, I'm going to step back from the meta-thread in hopes of not getting (further) off-track.

Repeatedly?? That too when it was provenblong back that his premises itself is bad.

Anyways respond on #67 too. Own up.

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.
I find that explanation quite unsatisfying. Anybody know of a better, more fundamental explanation?
There is no need and no hope for explanation. In both theories, it is a constant which it not defined by the theory itself, a free parameter, which has to be measured. If one wants to use in both theories the same denotation G, then one has to use the Newtonian limit of GR to find out how the two constants - of NT and of GR - depend on each other, and then you get the 8$\pi$.

This is the crux. You did not realise the incongruency of #1 to #3 in my post #62.
What incongruency? #1 and #3 were already demonstrated, and #2 is clearly wrong.

Both GR and Newtonian are conceptually different, the GR cannot lead to Newtonian because of incompatibility, but it is made to. That's what my original claim was.
Your continued failure to point to any problems with the link I posted with the derivation leads me to the conclusion that your claim is wrong.

What is constructive contribution here? You guys are trolling Hansda, he is here with his theory of Instantaneous Force for quite sometime, it is not even wrong, it is....
I don't know about the other people; I'm just here to figure out why hansda misled me by pointing to his texts claiming it showed the connection between GR and Newtonian physics.

So by repeatedly writing basics again and again, you and couple of these guys are contributing constructively?
Well, I've deconstructed hansda's text, and learned something in the process. What have you done in this thread?

See, this exchange may have been a bit rude somewhere, frustrating to both, but you learnt something and you will learn something more. That seed is planted.
I still am waiting on you to learn me what is wrong with the derivation in the link I posted earlier. Now that would be some new insights!

There is no need and no hope for explanation. In both theories, it is a constant which it not defined by the theory itself, a free parameter, which has to be measured. If one wants to use in both theories the same denotation G, then one has to use the Newtonian limit of GR to find out how the two constants - of NT and of GR - depend on each other, and then you get the 8$\pi$.
I was not clear enough; I was referring mainly to the 8pi, not the full 8$$\pi$$G. We are in agreement here.

There is no need and no hope for explanation. In both theories, it is a constant which it not defined by the theory itself, a free parameter, which has to be measured. If one wants to use in both theories the same denotation G, then one has to use the Newtonian limit of GR to find out how the two constants - of NT and of GR - depend on each other, and then you get the 8$\pi$.

Newtonian fine, the proportionality constant (say G) is experimentally measured. It's a standard experiment. How do you measure the related constant in GR?

Thanks for clarifying that to get G in GR, the Newtonian is resorted to. That was the whole point.

Last edited:
What incongruency? #1 and #3 were already demonstrated, and #2 is clearly wrong.

Your continued failure to point to any problems with the link I posted with the derivation leads me to the conclusion that your claim is wrong.

I don't know about the other people; I'm just here to figure out why hansda misled me by pointing to his texts claiming it showed the connection between GR and Newtonian physics.

Well, I've deconstructed hansda's text, and learned something in the process. What have you done in this thread?

I still am waiting on you to learn me what is wrong with the derivation in the link I posted earlier. Now that would be some new insights!

You do not understand 'made to'.
I never claimed that those derivations are wrong, I said that G (constant) is flicked from Newtonian, despite three apparent incongruencies as stated in #1 to #3.

You do some maths, and when you are near about that Poisson' equation, you compare it with Newtonian existing Poisson's equation and get G, and then boast around that lo GR leads to Newtonian in limiting case.

You read #62 again, the 'how' is not seeking the maths or procedural answer, it's referring to incompatibility. As I told you how a non force concept become force concept...

and how gravity moving at c, suddenly start moving with infinite speed....it cannot.