D

[martu]

D =G to the power of D - 2 multiplied by M to the power of D - 1 divided by r to the power of D - 1

Where D = Dimension


0 = G to the power of -2 multiplied by m to the power of -1 divided by r to the power of - 1

1 = G to the power of -1 multiplied by m to the power of 0 divided by r to the power of 0

2 = G to the power of 0 multiplied by m to the power of 1 divided by r to the power of 1

3 = G to the power of 1 multiplied by m to the power of 2 divided by r to the power of 2

[X]

D = GD - (2*MD-1)/rD-1

D = GD - (2*MD-1)/rD-1

The point?


Edit 1: added code

Edit 2 & 3: formula wrong, see below for correction

D = GD-2*(MD-1)/(rD-1)

D = GD-2*(MD-1)/(rD-1)

(I think that's right...)

[Gregory]

I have no idea what you're saying here. Among other things, you've only defined one of four variables. What are G, M, and r?

[AntiTelharsic]

I have no idea what you're saying here. Among other things, you've only defined one of four variables. What are G, M, and r?

The gravitational constant, a mass, and a separation between two bodies having that mass, I'll wager. Not that that makes it even remotely sensible, of course.

Edit: It looks like the source of this crackpottery is the "What Gravity Is" thread.

[Reality Check]

D =G to the power of D - 2 multiplied by M to the power of D - 1 divided by r to the power of D - 1

Where D = Dimension


0 = G to the power of -2 multiplied by m to the power of -1 divided by r to the power of - 1

1 = G to the power of -1 multiplied by m to the power of 0 divided by r to the power of 0

2 = G to the power of 0 multiplied by m to the power of 1 divided by r to the power of 1

3 = G to the power of 1 multiplied by m to the power of 2 divided by r to the power of 2
A nice bit of nonsense.

Left hand side: D is a dimension and is a number (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.)
Right hand side: various powers of G, M and r all with dimensions, e.g. metres for r.
First thing learnt in physics classes is dimensional ananlysis, i.e. you cannot put seconds equal to metres. This "equation" tries to make "various powers of G, M and r all with dimensions" equal to just numbers.
Thus this is not a real equation

[zosima]

If you set D = 3 and you replace the D on the left side with F then you get the equation for Newtonian gravity, but....the OP is fooling his/herself if they think that they can arbitrarily translate this equation into other dimensions so easily.

The best way to write a general version of the gravitational equation is using the Einstein tensor, the stress-energy tensor and the cosmological constant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

[X]

;3760061']D = GD - (2*MD-1)/rD-1

D = GD - (2*MD-1)/rD-1

The point?


Edit 1: added code

Edit 2 & 3: formula wrong, see below for correction

D = GD-2*(MD-1)/(rD-1)

D = GD-2*(MD-1)/(rD-1)

Ha! Got it.

(I think that's right...)


Dangit!
The code tags didn't work.
How did I not notice that?

Take 4:

D = GD-2*(MD-1)/(rD-1)


ETA: I'm still wondering what the point of this thread is.

[Gregory]

The best way to write a general version of the gravitational equation is using the Einstein tensor, the stress-energy tensor and the cosmological constant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

Does the gravitational equation need to be generalized? It works for three dimensions, which is the space we live in.

[zosima]

Does the gravitational equation need to be generalized? It works for three dimensions, which is the space we live in.

In the tensor form it is generalized with respect to choice of coordinate system, but not with respect to number of dimensions. That is the most general form of the gravitational equation that I'm aware of,though. Maybe string theory does a better job, but I don't really know anything about string theory.

[martu]

There exists a grid of particles such that these particles repel each other equally
M can be considered the distance between particles in the horizontal direction, r the distance between particles in the vertical direction

In 2D M is the most probable direction an atom will move in
In 3D this direction is defined by M squared
G is the density of the particles
The distance travelled is defined by r in 2D
In 3D this distance is defined b r squared
This defines Gravity, Gravity can be considered as the most probable direction an atom will move in

Time is the movement of the grid
The minimum slice of time in 2D is c
c is the maximum speed of the gravity particles as defined by the force repelling them
In 3D this is defined by c squared
Energy is a wave in the grid
This wave is defined by m the direction of the wave and a the speed of the wave

All else follows

Dimensions

0 = nothing exists
1 = Just a gravity particle exists
2 = Just the Grid exists
3 = The Grid and Matter exists
4 = The Grid and Matter exists plus the Grid is expanding

Therefore:
0 is self explanatory, nothing exists
1 is just a particle so m and r are undefined
2 is a grid of squares so most probable direction is defined by the ratio of m and r
3 is a grid of cubes containing matter– the most probable direction a piece of matter will move in is defined by m1 multiplied by m2 which defines the area in which the particle can move to. A change in distance r equates to a change in area therefore the ratio is defined by r squared. The sum of things that are influencing the grid is defined by G.
4 Is a grid of cubes that contains matter where the grid is expanding – the relationship between m and r is now a cube relationship as the most probable direction is related to a volume

To stop time stop the grid expanding – 3D can be considered a snapshot of the grid in time.

[Reality Check]

Totally wrong as in your other What Gravity Is (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115109) (not!)

[Lothian]

I hope you are not spending too much time on this when that time could be well spent reading up on the subject.

[six7s]

Of all the time I wasted today, the last three minutes were the most wasteful

[martu]

Totally wrong as in your other What Gravity Is (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115109) (not!)

Why?

[TrueSceptic]

I hope you are not spending too much time on this when that time could be well spent reading up on the subject.
Not to mention giving us a thread title that might give us some clue what it was about.

D is about as useless as ?.

[Reality Check]

Why?
A nice bit of nonsense.

Left hand side: D is a dimension and is a number (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.)
Right hand side: various powers of G, M and r all with dimensions, e.g. metres for r.
First thing learnt in physics classes is dimensional ananlysis, i.e. you cannot put seconds equal to metres. This "equation" tries to make "various powers of G, M and r all with dimensions" equal to just numbers.
Thus this is not a real equation

P.S. You should read this post in What Gravity is (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3761613#post3761613)