Re: GRAVITATION

In article <449ECF96.202@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, srp <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck a écrit :
In article
<250620061931495595%phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Phineas T
Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <449EBEFE.90805@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, srp
<srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck a écrit :
In article <449E9060.2040505@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, srp
<srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This means that if you want to use G in the
hydrogen atom, you have to recalculate G with
values that are meaningful to the hydrogen atom,
and which are

r = Bohr radius = 5.291772083E-11 m

M = mass of the proton = 1.67262158E-27 kg

and from the frequency of the Bohr ground
state energy (f = 6.57968391E15 Hz) you can
calculate T

T = 1/frequency = 1.519829851E-16 s

If you recalculate G for the hydrogen atom,
you get

G = (4 pi^2 r^3)/(M T^2) = 1.514172983E29
Following this on logically, are you saying G is a function of scale?
This is the bit I can't agree with.

Another thought

By increasing G in this way, you'd expect to see changes in
relativistic effects at this scale as well.....

Of course. That's what I am currently analyzing.

André Michaud

One thing that just sprung to mind is relativisic decay of particles in
the upper atmosphere. Wouldn't they show a difference in G in this
case? Doesn't the muon decay results say there isn't?

Admission: I'm watching football again,so I may be being stupid ;-)

--
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."
.

Quantcast