Captain Swoop,

This is the summary of the gravity equations:

F=G x Mm/r^n where "n" = 2^ 1 + (plus) cr./ar. for the "inside range" of gravity for stallar sized bodies and for the "outside range;"
where n = 2^ 1 - (minus) cr./ar for groups of stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters structures. These are simple vector division tensor equations. All combined vector forces of this pushing gravity model are Newtonian. Additionally there are "e" factor equations for redshifts greater than 1 that effect what we will observe at these distances. These can be found on pages 101 - 102A. The null effect condition for the first equation is Newtonian gravity, and the limit of the second equation is equivalent to MOND gravity. The use of these equations always would consist of at least two equations for stellar systems and many for complicated best-fit modeling of galaxy structures.

respectfully, forrest

This takes us back to a point that Grav made. What are the units of

F = G.M.m/rⁿ ?

For n not equal to 2?

Even for slight differences the quantity F ceases to be a quantity of force, so what is it?

The problem of dimensionality is something that others, such as cj5511, have had problems with.

Hey Fortis,

You can remember the questions but not the answers? All forces are Newtonian, simply the Newton's inverse square law. This equation divides the Newtonian force into three dimensional linear and orthogonal tensor components. These equations are just the orthogonal tensor component which added together with the linear component and a "z" component becomes the force of Newton's gravity.

I usually remember the answers but not the questions. To each his own.

respectfully, forrest

Wow Nereid, your are a formidable interrogator

I think these questions are great as far as providing a general understanding of vortex pushing gravity aether mechanics which I am proposing.

These are a couple of web sites where the authors have similar ideas but better graphics than my site.

http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/w4_gravX.html (this one has pretty good aether vortex graphics)

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp...instein_and_te

My models concerning disk rotating systems like our sun and solar system, would have two apposing flat vortices with the disk in the middle. Each vortex would be hard to distinguish for a star but easily distinguishable for our galaxy.

[quote]My guess is that one physical attribute is 'mass' - is that right?[quote]

Yes. My models include primarily two types of vortices on the stellar and galactic scales. The primary type is the aether funneling into matter and the other type are secondary vortices which are much weaker and are caused by interacting aether volumes between vortices.

There are similarities with GR to the extent that it's not just the quantity of matter that determines the extent of gravity but also the energy of the matter. GR is also based up non-linear motions resulting from warped space which has similarities to a vortex model. At close range I expect they are similar. As galactic and intergalactic scales involving orbital velocities they are very different.

Can you say a few words about the other attributes please?

I believe, and theoretically propose that the aether particle are billions of times smaller than the theoretical Higg's particle. My theory asserts that there is just one fundamental particle that makes up the aether and that they are strings of particles of millions of different lengths. The same particle accordingly would by the foundation particle for all matter. Accordingly there is nothing else that exists, just this one particle. (please excuse this small diversion of subject).

The field would probably become normal as if the planet was never there in possibly a few decades. A supernova on the other hand might take millions of years for the field to become normal relative to the stellar remnant that would remain.

Thanks, these kinds of questions are informative concerning my theory of gravity. Although the answers are not always definitive, often with qualifications such as "I think", "I believe", "possibly" etc., but others are more clear statements such as "the theory asserts", or "according to this theory."

Everything that is in my book I make more definitive statements. Those statements that are not contained within the book have qualifiers and I consider them to be more speculative.

respectfully, forrest