Re: GRAVITATION

In article <449ECF3B.9080101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, srp
<srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck a écrit :
In article <449ECB10.6030208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, srp
<srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck a écrit :


I'm just unhappy with that - as you've said, in this fashion G is not
constant. Thats the bit I am not happy with.
I do understand how difficult it is to re-question stuff that supports
models that we have come to find thoroughly consistant.

Why do I understand ?

Because faced with the out of focus lot of conflicting theories, and
the fact that there exists only one coherent physical reality, I
concluded that there was no way out except to hacksaw off all of my
certainties, and rebuild from the smallest set of verified data. The
hardest of all things to do.

My opinion was and still is that it's the price that must be paied
by any individual who wants to be part of the solution.

André Michaud

So you feel - but I feel that intrepretation of G is a bit
bass-ackwards for me and I don't see how you could explain how G scales
up to the value we currently know it is,

Personally - I see your equations are logically consistent, but I don't
think you can retro-fit G in the way you did. Thats just my opinion,
Andre.

Sure. No problem with that.

Actually, I do not have the impression that I retro-fittd G in any way.
I just used the corresponding 2 body system values consistent with the
dimensions of the hydrogen atom and applied them to the very clearly
defined structure of G applicable at that level.

I saw that - but I still feel uncomfortable with it. It sort of assumes
the wo situations can be equated in this fashion, whereas quantum
effects arre going to be far more important at the lower level.


I'd expect to see some sort of structure to the way G changes
that we would notice in between the extremes you chose (Solar System,
electron scale)....

Well, what you call "extremes" are simply the only two levels there
are in reality.

I meant extremes not in the insulting sense, more as in the two scales
you chose - i.e Planetary to electon - Those two are the extreme values
you chose - but I would expect to see some variation between the two.


Fundamental particles in elementary stable interaction (electrons,
quarks up and quarks down in atoms)

Huge complex accumulations (all astronomical masses) of fundamental
particles rotating and translating in general stable equilibrium.

Think that we are still using Newtonian mechanics to launch satellites,
and verifying limits with UnconstantInMyViewConstantG dependent GR.

Looks to me as if it may be time we move on.

Personal opinion of course.

André Michaud

Thank you Andre. Other people could take lessons on how to disagree as
civilly as you!

--
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."
.

Loading