wrote in message
...
wrote:

Plugging the mass of the proton in the Schwarzschild
Metric only gives one value for that radius. If you have a
new value then either you used a different value of mass
for the proton or you didn't use the Schwarzschild Metric,
and in the latter case it isn't really sensible to call your
number a "Schwarzschild Radius". Maybe you should
call it the Oldershaw Radius, but first you should publish
the Oldershaw Metric.


Allow me to do it for you. The Schwarschild radius equation is R =
2Gm/c^2, if I remember correctly.

The radius is derived from the metric. Do I assume
from what you say that you are not then proposing
an alternative metric?

I am *not* putting any mass into
this equation except the mass of the proton. What I am putting in that
is new is G(n-1) = 2.31 x 10^31 cm^3/g sec^2, instead of G which equals
6.67 x 10^-8 cgs.

In that case you have increased the acceleration due
to gravity here on the Earth's surface as predicted
by the Schwarzschild Metric by over 38 orders of
magnitude.

And best of all, within a few years this paradigm can be definitively
vindicated, or definitively falsified, ...

IMO getting the Earth's surface gravity wrong by 38
orders of magnitude is enough to falsify it.

Bottom line: GR does not specify the value of "G". Einstein put in the
Newtonian value of G because it seemed logical to do so and it gave the
right answers for the *stellar scale tests* that were available.

Given that it is a _constant_ in the equation, the
same value must apply for all masses. If it doesn't,
you need to change the equations so that they include
a mass-dependent (or perhaps scale-dependent) value
of gravitational 'constant', and Schwarschild's metric
would no longer be a solution.

He
knew he was making a temporary assumption.

Of course. Better measurements will always improve
the accuracy of the value, but we already know it to
better than 1% and your value is _grossly_ different.

We should too. The key idea
running through this thread is that while G applies within stellar
scale systems, it may not apply within atomic scale systems, which
require G(n-1). This may be a shocking idea with major implications for
particle physics, atomic physics and astrophysics.

No, the idea that quantum effects become important at
some small scale has been the driven force behind
attempts at unification for decades, but just picking
a different constant for use in the same equations
won't get you anywhere. The equations need to be
modified so that the macroscopic limit is GR (with the
conventional value of G) while the microscopic limit
tends to conventional QM.

I would urge you to
consider that the conceptual unity and harmony of the new paradigm will
outweigh the turmoil of paradigmatic change in the long run. There is
much work to be done and I need all the help I can get!

I am giving you what pointers I can.

George