Re: GRAVITATION

Phineas T Puddleduck a écrit :
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.

Who wouldn't. (Except me, of course :-))

It sort of assumes the wo situations can be equated in this fashion,

To me, both the solar system and the hydrogen atom are just many bodies
systems in electromagnetic equilibrium.

whereas quantum
effects arre going to be far more important at the lower level.

Yes, but I would say more obvious, rather than more important. From
my analysis, the most obvious effect would be that the electron
can be maintained somewhat stationary within reasonable limits
within the all-out set covered by QM. Limits that must be consistant
at least with the electron being at all times localized while never
exceeding the speed of light.

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.

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?

I am positive that the relativistic equation set will be just as
consistent.

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!

No real merit. But thanks for the compliment.

The result of 8 years of training on the ngs. Each person learns at
his/her own rate.

André Michaud
.

Relevant Pages

  • The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, Section 9c
    ... The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics ... The Atom as a Compacted Electromagnetic Field Structure - Part 3 ... Uncertainty Principle tells us that we cannot show that the electron ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: a question about conservation and photons
    ... |>|> interactions, all represent different types of collective motion ... The properties of an electron were pretty much determined in 1939 by ... Victor Weisskopf and are consistent. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: New lexical function F$DELTA_TIME
    ... >consistent with F$EDIT. ... I chose "NAME+TYPE" because I think of it as a string concatenation (although ... Disclaimer: I'm looking for marbles all day long. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: electron as point particle.
    ... However, all *measurements* we have made so far (especially electron-positron scattering, and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron) are consistent with the electron being a point particle. ... that of a single point electron in presence of a massive nucleus. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading