D

martu · 8th June 2008, 01:55 PM

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 · 8th June 2008, 02:04 PM

D = G^D - (2*M^D-1)/r^D-1

Code:

D = G^D - (2*M^D-1)/r^D-1

The point?

Edit 1: added code

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

D = G^D-2*(M^D-1)/(r^D-1)

Code:

D = G^D-2*(M^D-1)/(r^D-1)

(I think that's right...)

Gregory · 8th June 2008, 02:04 PM

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 · 8th June 2008, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by 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?

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 · 8th June 2008, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by 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

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 · 8th June 2008, 08:52 PM

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 · 8th June 2008, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by [X]

D = G^D - (2*M^D-1)/r^D-1

Code:

D = G^D - (2*M^D-1)/r^D-1

The point?

Edit 1: added code

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

D = G^D-2*(M^D-1)/(r^D-1)

Code:

D = G^D-2*(M^D-1)/(r^D-1)

Ha! Got it.

(I think that's right...)

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

Take 4:

HTML Code:

D = G[sup]D-2[/sup]*(M[sup]D-1[/sup])/(r[sup]D-1[/sup])

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

Gregory · 8th June 2008, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by zosima

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 · 8th June 2008, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Gregory

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 · 9th June 2008, 01:27 AM

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 · 9th June 2008, 01:47 AM

Totally wrong as in your other What Gravity Is (not!)

Lothian · 9th June 2008, 02:05 AM

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

six7s · 9th June 2008, 02:17 AM

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

martu · 9th June 2008, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Totally wrong as in your other What Gravity Is (not!)

Why?

TrueSceptic · 9th June 2008, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

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 · 9th June 2008, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by martu

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

8th June 2008, 01:55 PM	#1
martu Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: London Posts: 1,003	D 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

8th June 2008, 02:04 PM	#2
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082	D = G^D - (2M^D-1)/r^D-1 Code: D = G^D - (2M^D-1)/r^D-1 The point? Edit 1: added code Edit 2 & 3: formula wrong, see below for correction D = G^D-2(M^D-1)/(r^D-1) Code: D = G^D-2(M^D-1)/(r^D-1) (I think that's right...)
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis Last edited by X; 8th June 2008 at 03:33 PM. Reason: code; formula

8th June 2008, 02:04 PM	#3
Gregory Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 687	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?
Gregory Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 687	Last edited by Gregory; 8th June 2008 at 02:05 PM.

8th June 2008, 07:11 PM	#4
AntiTelharsic Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 252	Originally Posted by 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? 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.
	Last edited by AntiTelharsic; 8th June 2008 at 07:23 PM.

8th June 2008, 08:18 PM	#5
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,815	Originally Posted by 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 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
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

8th June 2008, 08:52 PM	#6
zosima Muse Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: xkcd/406 Posts: 536	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

8th June 2008, 09:18 PM	#7
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082	Originally Posted by [X] D = G^D - (2M^D-1)/r^D-1 Code: D = G^D - (2M^D-1)/r^D-1 The point? Edit 1: added code Edit 2 & 3: formula wrong, see below for correction D = G^D-2(M^D-1)/(r^D-1) Code: D = G^D-2(M^D-1)/(r^D-1) Ha! Got it. (I think that's right...) Dangit! The code tags didn't work. How did I not notice that? Take 4: HTML Code: D = G[sup]D-2[/sup]*(M[sup]D-1[/sup])/(r[sup]D-1[/sup]) ETA: I'm still wondering what the point of this thread is.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis Last edited by X; 8th June 2008 at 09:19 PM.

8th June 2008, 10:07 PM	#8
Gregory Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 687	Originally Posted by zosima 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.
Gregory Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 687

8th June 2008, 10:25 PM	#9
zosima Muse Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: xkcd/406 Posts: 536	Originally Posted by Gregory 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.

9th June 2008, 01:27 AM	#10
martu Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: London Posts: 1,003	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.
	Last edited by martu; 9th June 2008 at 02:46 AM. Reason: It was wrong

9th June 2008, 01:47 AM	#11
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,815	Totally wrong as in your other What Gravity Is (not!)
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

9th June 2008, 02:05 AM	#12
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	I hope you are not spending too much time on this when that time could be well spent reading up on the subject.

9th June 2008, 02:17 AM	#13
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710	Of all the time I wasted today, the last three minutes were the most wasteful
	__________________ Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!

9th June 2008, 02:22 AM	#14
martu Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: London Posts: 1,003	Originally Posted by Reality Check Totally wrong as in your other What Gravity Is (not!) Why?

9th June 2008, 02:37 AM	#15
TrueSceptic Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Northampton, UK Posts: 2,143	Originally Posted by Lothian 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 ?.

9th June 2008, 04:06 AM	#16
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,815	Originally Posted by martu 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
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2 Last edited by Reality Check; 9th June 2008 at 04:16 AM.