... that "the small" will simply "run down"? I suggest that it draws energy into a trap. Temporally (scale again). Things do change and they have a reason (physic) for why this is so. Atoms, molecules, planets, galaxies and galactic clusters seem to be trapped temporally. Atoms do *not* seem to be "trapped". Even molecules larger than C-60 buckyballs can be made to...

...t know exactly how that happens but it does. I suggest that it draws energy into a trap. Temporally (scale again). Things do change and they have a reason (physic) for why this is so. Atoms, molecules, planets, galaxies and galactic clusters seem to be trapped temporally. Even beyond, we claim a cosmological constant that pokes both expansion and gravity in the eye. Can ...

... between the two theories even though they correspond at some limit. GR only contains Newton after a large line of approximations. The reason which they are not really equivalent is that spatial, temporal, and causal structure for both is different. We aaalllllllll know that. You do not know you are speaking! Sorry, I forget there are some real morons on this ...

...\phi is not equivalent to Newton equation (4.4) even if both seem to be the same in a first look! The reason which they are not really equivalent is that spatial, temporal, and causal structure for both is different. For instance spatial metric dsigma^2 = gamma_ij dx^i dx^j is different in Newton gravity and General Relativity. The anonymous ...

... agree with the Referee when it says something incredibly well known. You said GR reduces to NG a few days ago :-) The reason which they are not really equivalent is that spatial, temporal, and causal structure for both is different. We aaalllllllll know that. You do not know you are speaking! This is all incredibly well known material that no sane person who can ...

...both seem to be the same in a first look! Do you have a different definition for acceleration and the gradient in mind? The reason which they are not really equivalent is that spatial, temporal, and causal structure for both is different. We aaalllllllll know that. For instance spatial metric dsigma^2 = gamma_ij dx^i dx^j is different in Newton gravity and ...

... \phi is not equivalent to Newton equation (4.4) even if both seem to be the same in a first look! The reason which they are not really equivalent is that spatial, temporal, and causal structure for both is different. For instance spatial metric dsigma^2 = gamma_ij dx^i dx^j is different in Newton gravity and General Relativity. The anonymous referee (i ...

... \phi is not equivalent to Newton equation (4.4) even if both seem to be the same in a first look! The reason which they are not really equivalent is that spatial, temporal, and causal structure for both is different. For instance spatial metric dsigma^2 = gamma_ij dx^i dx^j is different in Newton gravity and General Relativity. The anonymous referee...

... - partial_i \phi is not equivalent to Newton equation (4.4) even if both seem to be the same in a first look! The reason which they are not really equivalent is that spatial, temporal, and causal structure for both is different. For instance spatial metric dsigma^2 = gamma_ij dx^i dx^j is different in Newton gravity and General Relativity. The anonymous referee (i think he is ...

... **  i, j = 1, 2, 3 In spacetime, the equation above becomes ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j Where **  i, j = 0, 1, 2, 3 **  0 represents the temporal dimension Just what revolutionary insight do you need to write an equation in 3- d into 4-D.  <shrug> The Goetingen group of mathematicians however had no clues as to derive what the metric is.  Since then, ...