If it's invariant under general coordinate transformations, it's equivalent to Einstein's equations; if it's not, it isn't.

Stam Nicolis

I added the speed parameter to it(Same velocity parameter as for the Doppler effect), so it handles the coordinate transformation. But I'm not sure if the gravitational field can be completely similar to the electromagnetic field, and I don't know if the equations can accurately describe the law of the gravitational field.

Stam Nicolis

This system of equations was originally Oliver.Heaviside's gravitational magnetic equations, but the first one of the original equation was due by the relationship of symbols, It leads to contradictions,so I added a negative sign to Newton's second law, so that there is no contradiction. I added a speed parameter to it as a reference frame.

One thing let me some believe this equations, GR field equation in the case of the Newton approximation can degenerate into a Poisson equation,and the first part of this equations is the Poisson equation.That is, this system of equations contains a Newtonian approximation of the relativistic field equation.

Many people know that the first equation of Oliver.Heaviside's system of gravitational magnetic equations is Newton's Poisson equation

Sorry, but your equation is in contradiction to the experiment. The force vector f and the acceleration vector g are parallel and not anti-parallel. A negative mass does not exist.

Wolfgang Konle

You mean that the force of Newton's second law is parallel to the force of gravity acceleration, not the opposite?

Wolfgang Konle

But, you know what? Inertial force is f= -ma, and this force is actually gravity, is it not the opposite of Newton's second law? I did so, and I also solved the problem of what force the inertia force is.

Wolfgang Konle

I'm not saying that there is negative mass, is negative force, Gravity and Newton's second law are a positive and negative relationship,I also think inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass.

Wolfgang Konle

On a train, there is a small table with a small ball, and as the train accelerates forward, the ball accelerates toward the opposite direction, and the force on the ball is considered inertial force. I think this inertial force actually comes from the Earth, that is, it is gravity. This inertial force is accelerating in the opposite direction to the train, because gravity and Newton's second law are opposite forces. This experiment proves my point.

Duan Xian Xiang "On a train, there is a small table with a small ball, and as the train accelerates forward, the ball accelerates toward the opposite direction, and the force on the ball is considered inertial force...This experiment proves my point"

Sorry, but this experiment does not proof anything. Fact is that there is no force, which accelerates the ball. The train only accelerates the table.

Wolfgang Konle

So why does the ball move in the opposite direction?

Duan Xian Xiang "So why does the ball move in the opposite direction?"

The ball stays where it was. The table gets accelerated and the person who observes the ball.

This system of equations seems to calculate the starlight offset, and it, like the result of relativity, is twice as much as Newtonian mechanics.

Is there a bug in my calculations? Incredibly, this equation can calculate the starlight offset, and it is as numerical as relativity.(I think the ether will refract light, but I don't take that into account.）