Re: GRAVITATION

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. 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)....

--
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."
.