Re: GRAVITATION

In article <449ED623.7020502@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, srp
<srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You say that "I chose". What choice was there really. Gamow explained
how G is structured from the Solar system parameters, so he chose it
for me. The mean radius of the Earth orbit and Earth year being
inconsistant with the Bohr radius, and Bohr ground state frequency,
what choice did I have really but to size G down to proper scale if
I wanted to use it with the hydrogen atom. Isn't getting the correct
force a tell-tale that the move was not that bold ? And isn't getting
the fundamental F=ma from both the Coulomb equation and the
gravitational equation another tell-tale that the classical equation
set is consistent?

My unease is the implied discontinuity in G at some scale inbetween the
two. If you say G has a different value at hydrogen-atom scale,
compared to the solar system scale - then there is either a
discontinuity or a progressive change.

Agreed it seems a way of "unifying" (for want of a better word) EM and
gravity but I still feel an unease about it.

Admittedly I do tend to shave close with Occam occasionally, so you may
ignore me ;-)

I agree you got those equations, but I'm unconvinced as to whether the
initial step you made is valid (to me, again my opinion yada yada!).
Whether it was fortuitous or not is as of yet uncertain to me - but
thanks for answering my questions.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my *** poking forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull*** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
.