[Richard777 (OP)]

The time dependant Schroedinger wave equation for an unbound object is well discussed in the literature. This equation may be modified by assumed wave properties.

The modified SWE represents reciprocal forces. The object exerts a force upon local space-time and a reciprocal force is exerted upon the object.

A massive object has “gravitational energy” responsible for the generation of a gravitational field. A gravitational interaction between two massive objects is mediated by gravitational fields, which may be represented by gravitational energies. The Newton equation of gravitational interaction may be derived from the gravitational energies.

Can gravitational energy generate a gravitational field?

[Bill S]

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity

“ One reason why the physics of general relativity is much more difficult than that of Newton's theory of gravity or the theory of electrodynamics is a property called non-linearity. In short, gravity can beget further gravity - where gravitational systems are concerned, the whole is not the sum of its parts.”

This is “sloppy” wording.  Non-linearity does not imply that gravity appears from nowhere, as this would lead to run-away gravity.   It is probably better to think this way:

M is the original mass/energy that creates gravity.
G is the gravity (curvature) created by M.
G carries energy, but the total mass/energy of M + G cannot be greater than the original mass/energy of M, because the energy contained in G does not appear from nowhere.
 

[jeffreyH]

The heart of the matter lies in this discussion thread.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_GR_highly_non_linear_while_electrostatic_interactions_are_linear_even_in_the_comparatively_stronger_electric_force_limit

This even includes a good clue as to why quantum mechanics and general relativity cannot be reconciled at the moment.

[Bill S]

Gerard t Hooft:

“Physically, this means that gravity carries energy and momentum (although this depends on the curved coordinates chosen), so gravity generates gravity, while em fields are electrically neutral."

This says quite clearly that “gravity generates gravity”; but, unless this is also incautious wording, what prevents run-away gravity? 

Where does the additional gravitational energy come from?

[jeffreyH]

I am not happy about how relativity doesn't treat gravity as a force. Time measures the rate of change of something so that what is 'curving' is that rate of change. That means a dilation of force. Since force causes the change. It is like no one will discuss the elephant in the room.

[Bill S]

I am not happy about how relativity doesn't treat gravity as a force.

No need to be too unhappy, Jeffrey.  As I understand it, neither Einstein nor relativity asserts that gravity is not a force.  The equations by which it is described, mathematically, are non-linear, but this non-linearity does not mean that the gravity it describes is not a force. 

Of course, as a non-mathematician, I may have missed something vital, in which case I would be grateful for an explanation.

[opportunity]

I am not happy about how relativity doesn't treat gravity as a force.

No need to be too unhappy, Jeffrey.  As I understand it, neither Einstein nor relativity asserts that gravity is not a force.  The equations by which it is described, mathematically, are non-linear, but this non-linearity does not mean that the gravity it describes is not a force. 

Of course, as a non-mathematician, I may have missed something vital, in which case I would be grateful for an explanation.

Perhaps the reason why relativity doesn't consider gravity as a force yet a curvature of space-time is because of focussing on the reference of light and relativity there, as that's the DNA of relativity theory, not physical mass that may appear relativity stable in time to another mass yet still be involved in a force field effect.

Relativity is a good concept when considering light characterising the motion of objects, yet is light per-se as electromagnetic radiation a gravitational field influence?

The reason why relativity considers gravity as a curvature of space-time is owing to the time-dilation effect for each metric of space as a body gets more massive as it approaches the speed of light. That could be an entirely different issue for gravity, a supplementary issue, not a be all and end all. Other issues have evolved in scientific theory that try to imply it with relativity as a be all and end all though.

The important question to therefore discuss is what theories subsequent to relativity theory pegged gravity alone with relativity theory? Have we deviated off track subsequent to that process?

[Colin2B]

Perhaps the reason why relativity doesn't consider gravity as a force yet a curvature of space-time is because of focussing on the reference of light and relativity there, as that's the DNA of relativity theory,

I think you are confusing SR and GR.

is light per-se as electromagnetic radiation a gravitational field influence?

No, and no-one suggests it is.

The reason why relativity considers gravity as a curvature of space-time is owing to the time-dilation effect for each metric of space as a body gets more massive as it approaches the speed of light.

No, the starting point is the equivalence of uniform gravitational field and acceleration, if you then consider the speed/time curve you can consider that a straight line if spacetime curves

I am not happy about how relativity doesn't treat gravity as a force.

No need to be too unhappy, Jeffrey.  As I understand it, neither Einstein nor relativity asserts that gravity is not a force.  The equations by which it is described, mathematically, are non-linear, but this non-linearity does not mean that the gravity it describes is not a force. 

Yes, at the end of the day you can experience a force from gravity and use it to measure the gravitational field strength. Relativity doesnt argue with that.

[opportunity]

So Newton has cred?

I've studied anatomy, done autopsies.....I know just looking at physiology doesn't explain anatomy.

Does gravitational energy generate a gravitational field? What are either if we don't know how it works yet?

It's a shame if we fail to see the obvious.

A good answer? Newton is bust if we're using the Plank scale.

[Colin2B]

A good answer? Newton is bust if we're using the Plank scale.

I'm afraid a lot of your 'answers' just don't make sense in the way you present them.
There is nothing about Planck that causes Newton's laws to 'bust'.
I hope you are giving full explanations in New Theories, but can we stick with real physics here please.

[opportunity]

A good answer? Newton is bust if we're using the Plank scale.

I'm afraid a lot of your 'answers' just don't make sense in the way you present them.
There is nothing about Planck that causes Newton's laws to 'bust'.
I hope you are giving full explanations in New Theories, but can we stick with real physics here please.

I hope I'm not the only one worried about Newtonian Physics being forgotten on the Planck scale.......apologies if I erred in not saying that already.

[opportunity]

A good answer? Newton is bust if we're using the Plank scale.

I'm afraid a lot of your 'answers' just don't make sense in the way you present them.
There is nothing about Planck that causes Newton's laws to 'bust'.
I hope you are giving full explanations in New Theories, but can we stick with real physics here please.

If I was Newton, what would you tell me?

[Colin2B]

A good answer? Newton is bust if we're using the Plank scale.

I'm afraid a lot of your 'answers' just don't make sense in the way you present them.
There is nothing about Planck that causes Newton's laws to 'bust'.
I hope you are giving full explanations in New Theories, but can we stick with real physics here please.

If I was Newton, what would you tell me?

I'd tell you not to worry.
The Plack units/scale gives us:
- a conversion factor between frequency/wavelength and energy for the photon
- an indication of the smallest unit we might be able to measure ie a limit on frequency and wavelength
- a normalisation of units to simplify calculations
- ħ sets the scale at which uncertainty of position and momentum become important.

I don't see how any of those means 'Newton is bust if we're using the Plank scale'

Relativity didn't overturn Newton, just added a level of detail/understanding for certain situations such as light in a gravitational field and the motion of Mercury. Newton's laws still work at slow speeds and gravity that is not extreme.
Similarly quantum gravity will bring a deeper level of understanding (hopefully).
Note: General relativity uses c and G but treats ħ as negligibly small, whereas quantum field theory uses c and ħ but treats G as negligible, both of these are reasonable considering the scale each works on. Currently there is uncertainty about what happens below the planck length (assuming we can ever observe any effect there), we will certainly need a description that may be outside of current relativity and QM, but statements like 'Newton is bust if we're using the Plank scale' risks spreading more false news.

[Bill S]

I hope I'm not the only one worried about Newtonian Physics being forgotten on the Planck scale...

As long as Newtonian equations are being used to put things and people into space, and bring them back safely; I'm not too bothered about Newton being forgotten.

[jeffreyH]

In theory gluons can emit and absorb gluons. Where do these extra gluons come from? Probably the same place the extra gravity could come from. If it is taken out of a condensate the condensate remains unchanged. If it is returned to a condensate the condensate remains unchanged. An amount of gravitational energy will beget a proportionally tiny amount of gravity. Much like a particle will produce a tiny amount of gravity. The strength of the gravity is always far less than the energy that generates it. Therefore there can be no runaway gravity.

[opportunity]

A good answer? Newton is bust if we're using the Plank scale.

I'm afraid a lot of your 'answers' just don't make sense in the way you present them.
There is nothing about Planck that causes Newton's laws to 'bust'.
I hope you are giving full explanations in New Theories, but can we stick with real physics here please.

If I was Newton, what would you tell me?

I'd tell you not to worry.
The Plack units/scale gives us:
- a conversion factor between frequency/wavelength and energy for the photon
- an indication of the smallest unit we might be able to measure ie a limit on frequency and wavelength
- a normalisation of units to simplify calculations
- ħ sets the scale at which uncertainty of position and momentum become important.

I don't see how any of those means 'Newton is bust if we're using the Plank scale'

Relativity didn't overturn Newton, just added a level of detail/understanding for certain situations such as light in a gravitational field and the motion of Mercury. Newton's laws still work at slow speeds and gravity that is not extreme.
Similarly quantum gravity will bring a deeper level of understanding (hopefully).
Note: General relativity uses c and G but treats ħ as negligibly small, whereas quantum field theory uses c and ħ but treats G as negligible, both of these are reasonable considering the scale each works on. Currently there is uncertainty about what happens below the planck length (assuming we can ever observe any effect there), we will certainly need a description that may be outside of current relativity and QM, but statements like 'Newton is bust if we're using the Plank scale' risks spreading more false news.

Excellent response. Thankyou.