Berndt Barkholz, I suggest the answer depends on the observers view. If at rest with the centre-of-mass of the body; it's < c. If measuring speed from a state of motion ('rest frame') 'passing by' the spinning body, the finding may be >c. We oft forget; the concept 'speed' always needs a 'datum'. Einstein pointed out 'bodies are spatially extended' so Earth's atmosphere rotates, and all including the ionosphere orbits the sun with a certain speed through the ISM (107,208kph), so forming our two fluid plasma 'bow shock'. Choose your kinetic datum k first as the answer is dependent on it.

Peter Jackson

In order to find the basics of gravity we have to assume that the mass is spherical, not moving and not rotating... otherwise we have to find a new theory of gravity for every slightly differently deformed mass and that can't be right, not ? The "bow chock" and all that have nothing to do with ideal basic gravity, but with conditions of real bodies in space. Every gravitating body has different speed, rotation and "bow chock" data... so they have no influence on basic gravity, which must be found from a singel mass placed in an empty space. The influence of speed, rotation and "bow chock" data and whatever I have forgotten here must be added later for every gravitating mass, but the equations for basic gravity must be found by assuming ideal conditions and not with potato like gravitating bodies.

What the tiny observer sees, hears and feels has also nothing to do with basic gravity, so that argument doesn't hold.

However... that Einstein found out that "bodies are spatially extended" is really "a remarkable achievement" I bow in front of this enormous wisdom. (sarcasm off)

Berndt Barkholz, I agree for practical purposes we can simplify to spherical, but must never forget we've done that! Reality is potato shaped! It's 'shock' not 'chock', as the 'bow wave' of a submarine or plane, but of condensed matter (fermion vortex pairs), each with non-zero gravity (scale invariant). Tiny vortices form the same radial pressure gradients as galaxies. Each one additive. Remember ALL bodies are made from tiny particles!! We must suspend beliefs and prejudices to learn new truths.

Peter Jackson

Stop presenting your vortices as cause for gravitational forces... you are stuck in "quicksand" up to your neck... with that approach you need a new theory of gravity for every planet...

Berndt Barkholz, Vortex radial pressure distributions are irrefutable. Only those blinkered by other beliefs fail to see the exact correlation with gravity. One 'theory' covers all cases, it's just each 'case' that's different. Exactly as found! If we wish to falsify a hypothesis we need sound evidence not just an opinion! Uniquely the vortex model reproduces the anisotropies Newton & SR can't do.

Peter Jackson

I don't have any opinion about gravity... you have an opinion, but nothing that reminds about evidence. I have lots of evidence... the problem is just that you are not able to understand THAT it is evidence. It's all fine with your vortex radial pressure... but it hasn't anything to do with gravity !! Nothing at all !!

Berndt Barkholz, "Nothing at all !!" I'm sure that's true in your mind, but not in reality. Only EXPERIMENTS provide evidence. Take barometer readings radially around ANY vortex, or on Bloch sphere vectors around a 3D pair (torus). Not only does it describe the inverse sq. distribution, it ALSO gives the 'anomalies' found in actual gravity which Newton didn't account for. Use hard facts not opinion Berndt!

Peter I know that barometer readings would show pressure gradients... that is normal bloody meteorology ! But what the hell has all that with gravity to do ? NOTHING !!!

It's among the greatest nonsense ever proclaimed ! That is true, yes !!!!!

Berndt Barkholz, The most valuable lesson I learned from Freeman Dyson is that advancement of scientific understanding isn't about finding new things but finding new ways to look at the familiar! Nobody will have looked that way before, so it will look unfamiliar. In physics, ANY effect, familiar or not, reproducing something, is a serious candidate. Thomson, after Leibnitz first posited 'vortex-aether' (see G.B.Doran '75 etc.) Einstein & others followed, but they'd MISSED Bernoulli's pre Newton 'radial force' derivation. Also see Cahill, & New Scientist. article; "the nature of gravity may have been misunderstood all along."

https://www.academia.edu/23783338/Gravitation_the_Dark_Matter_Effect_and_the_Fine_Structure_Constant?email_work_card=view-paper

& if you speak Russian; https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:6c829c17-a1af-39df-8361-636ed227dc07

What's certainly true is that the source of gravity is clearly NOT where most have been looking! It only takes a fluid condensate & density gradient for vortex gravity to make perfect sense!

Peter Jackson

Density gradients produce a force pointing towards lower density... called buoyancy... and what's important is that density gradients need Newtonian gravity in order to exist... your contributions are a disgrace... now find someone else to talk an ear off...

Berndt Barkholz , "your contributions are a disgrace", and I find yours not only a disgrace but naïve thinking devoid of intellect. The top historical figures who worked on this didn't have those limitations. What we 'call' things makes no difference to anything. We can even validly hypothesize gravity to be a 'buoyancy' effect if we wish! Take those mental blinkers off Berndt!

...top historical clowns you mean.

Berndt Barkholz, You should be aware that many any might think you a little delusional suggesting you're brighter than Bernoulli, Thomson, Einstein etc.!

Peter Jackson : "You should be aware that many any might think you a little delusional suggesting you're brighter than Bernoulli, Thomson, Einstein etc.!"

I don't care much about what people think about me... it's YOU... YOU are suggesting to be smarter than Bernoulli and the rest of the world by claiming that Bernoulli's principle can explain gravity !! What a joke !!

Most others, including me, just deny that with big letters !

Bernoulli was "the master of fluid dynamics"... not gravity ! And you want to be brighter than the rest of the world, constantly suggesting that other people can't think when they argue against your silly vortex gravity...

I AM NOT INTERESTED IN HEARING ANY MORE OF THESE FANTASIES... THEY ARE WORD-BASED AND WITHOUT ANY MATHEMATICAL SUPPORT... AND THUS ABSOLUTELY USELESS !!

Berndt Barkholz, Rigidly enforce 'categories' commonly proves mistaken in understanding nature. Remember; "Advancement of understanding mostly isn't about finding new things but about having the ability to find new ways of looking at the familiar". Bernoulli of course didn't know his model applied to gravity. Thomson, Einstein etc also missed it in their vortex work. I just found it's the same formulation.

But Bernoulli must have found out of it by reading Newton's work... don't you think ?!

Do you have other funny stories ?

Berndt Barkholz, You're likely thinking of Daniel Bernoulli, His father Jacob, friend of Euler, tutored him & his brother. Jacob died in 1705, 21yrs before Newton. Both were contemporaries, so may well have read of it, But Euler's equation was the precursor of the vortex equation, not thought of as being connected with gravity at the time. The Principia included a specific attempt to disprove Descartes' vortex theory of planetary motion which Jacob had translated! So it seems as likely Daniel was informed by Descartes! None the less no link was made in any writings I've read.

Dear Mr. Berndt Barkholz,

Thank you for your recent correspondence and for sharing your insights on the relationship between mass, radius, and orbital velocity. I appreciate your dedication to exploring these fundamental concepts and look forward to examining the file you mentioned.

I acknowledge your equation rₘᵢₙ = Gm/c² and its implications for gravitational dynamics. Your approach, which emphasizes the boundary where the orbital velocity reaches the speed of light, presents a thought-provoking perspective. I understand that this deviates from the Schwarzschild radius and challenges conventional interpretations, such as Planck units.

Regarding the relationship we derived, m = rₘᵢₙ × 1.349 × 10²⁷ kg, I am keen to see how this connects to the Chandrasekhar mass limit and the potential integration of gravity with atomic physics. Providing empirical or theoretical values for either m or rₘᵢₙ will be crucial for substantiating your claims. Once R or rₘᵢₙ is established, m can be computed using rₘᵢₙ = Gm/c².

I appreciate your willingness to share your work despite the potential controversy it may generate by challenging established theories, including those of Albert Einstein. Rest assured, I do not hesitate to question or reject established theories if new evidence or valid theoretical frameworks warrant such reconsideration. Scientific progress depends on our ability to remain open to new ideas and rigorously test them.

In response to your question about a mass with a surface orbit velocity greater than the speed of light, I would like to add a nuanced perspective:

In the realm of general relativity, the speed of light, c, represents a fundamental limit. Any scenario suggesting vᴏ > c would violate the principles of relativity, specifically within gravitationally bound systems. However, in dark energy-dominated, antigravitational space, galaxies can recede faster than the speed of light, contrary to the phenomenon where gravity attracts masses."

I am looking forward to your detailed explanation and the file that illustrates how your proposed relationship leads to the Chandrasekhar mass limit and connects gravity with atomic physics.

Best regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur