No. It doesn't make sense to use the Newtonian approximation for relativistic objects.

Any relativistic object has an energy-momentum 4-vector, (E,pc) whose norm is given by the expression E2-p2c2. This combination is invariant under global Lorentz transformations and defines the mass of the object through the expression m2c4. If m≠0, thus E2>p2c2, it's a standard exercise to show that there exists a global Lorentz transformation to the reference frame where the energy-momentum 4-vector has components (E,0). In this frame E2=m2c4, thus E=mc2....

One question Do you think our universe with billions of galaxies, where they are situated in moderate distance, and place billions of solar system like our that working in most accurate way is working mechanically, and can be describe by one dimension static mathematic?

By the way, speed of sunlight with massive frequencies and wavelength can be constant as Einstein formula state it.

Javad Fardaei: "Do you think our universe ... can be describe by one dimension static mathematic?"

I just assume any mass to have a static gravitational potential (edit: around it which falls off by 1/r over distance).

"... speed of sunlight ... can be constant as Einstein formula state it."

Einstein 1911 found star light aberration close to the Sun to be the result of speed-of-light reduction due to locally enhanced gravitational potential.

Stam Nicolis: "It doesn't make sense to use the Newtonian approximation for relativistic objects."

Would you kindly explain: Is gravitational potential a "Newtonian approximation", and isn't any mass a relativistic object?

Dear Johan ( Johan K. Fremerey ).

It was with great difficulty to write the article on graviton:

Article Fizikailag-metafizikailag bizonyítható a graviton létezése

(Hungarian)

Its abstract, conclushiaon and concept of graviton has English translation:

Research Proposal Physico-metaphysical proof of the existence of graviton (Fiz...

Chapter Physico-metaphysical proof of the existence of graviton

Chapter 230902-En-H-Gr-t

(Remark: I would translate it all into English if someone would review it linguistically!).

With this approach, you cannot explain your own question. A 'kg mass' does not always have the same energy potential... If you had given me an electron volt value I would have been happier.

For 1 kg of wood, it is as indifferent what the mass of the Moon is... the time will come when it will not matter under any circumstances.

http://planeterosion.blogspot.com/

'Einstein 1911 found star light aberration close to the Sun to be the result of speed-of-light reduction due to locally enhanced gravitational potential.'-

This is not due to the Sun's gravity, but to the Sun's space entity concentration ... The speed of light near the surface of the Earth is increasing because of the Earth's gravity.

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Johan K. Fremerey to my knowledge our universe with several billions of galaxies where each galaxy host billions of solar system cannot working mechanically of push/pull. Our universe is a complete well organized entity, and Mr. Einstein missed this fact.

traditionally science is aware that sunlight has massive number of frequencies, and large number of wavelength with visible/invisible character and it does not have constant speed.

Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon

Article The Mythos of Gravity Or (Newtonian and Einsteinian Gravity is a Myth)

Please read these two article for more detail. all of my article are unprecedented, but fact.

regards.

László Attila Horváth: "With this approach, you cannot explain your own question."

If your approach to gravitational interaction is via particles, how do you account for 1/r long-range profile and effect of something like a gravitational potential ? Particle interaction should certainly go with short-range 1/r2 profile.

DearJohan, Johan K. Fremerey ,

It's a shame that my article is not in English... The exact thing is that I don't use graviton quanta to explain macroscopic gravity! The gravton quanta is the 'gravitational field' of the elementary particle.

That is why was important to entroduce a metaphysical term: a priori entity which is same at the macro amd elementary level... In this way do not exist problem for explanation of gravity field... and same we have the graviton.

If someone offers to help to correct the translation, I will translate it into English.

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Johan K. Fremerey Can you describe :Particle"

What is particle? What kind of internal structure they have? How can someone measure it?

Science does not have any explanation for it.

Unfortunately we use it without thinking.

One the other hand, gravity is a nature phenomenon

Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon

regards

Javad Fardaei: "What is particle?"

I imagine an elementary particle including internal structure as a localized - by rotation - status of its relativistic energy content Em = mc2 as proposed in my proton model, see reference below. Its physical dimensions can be "measured" by scattering experiments.

Research Proposal Triple-gyro model for deduction of proton radius and magnetic moment

Dear Johan K. Fremerey

You said >>status of its relativistic energy content Em = mc2 as proposed in my proton model,

Me>>to accept for atom follow our imagination or modeling is not science. we must observe nature not modeling it. On the other hand the formula of E=mc2 is incorrect, because speed of sunlight with massive frequencies, with wide range wavelength and visible /invisible does not have constant speed. Einstein use speed of flashlight on this formula, which it does not have any scientific evaluation . please read this articles

Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon

Article Intelligent Atom

Javad Fardaei: "we must observe nature not modeling it."

Sometimes modeling helps understanding observations.

Dear Johan K. Fremerey Our nature follows its nature, not someone modeling.

Modeling (atom), prediction (black hole bb) presumption (all textbooks), one-dimension mathematic for three-dimension of nature, probability of outcome... all started last century which is not science, unfortunately our science believe them.

Sadly all of our scientists strongly follow last century our icons.

Science is fact, and everyone should practice it uniformly.

.

Javad Fardaei: "Science is fact"

Who defines what is "fact" ? I would say: "Science is trying to understand observations."

We all know, everything that made of atoms and molecules are born one day and die in certain window of life. all the entity that made of atom, also use energy without friction, like atom expand and shrank by temperature and pressure. this is the fact. every layman knows it.

BUT, science does not. Science think E=mc2 is real, science think atom is mechanics (QM) , science think atom is measurable. science think speed of sunlight is constant... this list goes on. .

The fact is you, and me think science knows it, but reality science does not.