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. 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. The reason for doing that is as follows: the scaling
equations and self-similar scaling rules of the Discrete Fractal
paradigm require it. The reasons for why G(n-1) is proposed to be the
correct and only gravitational "constant" valid within atomic scale
systems is thoroughly discussed in an easy-to-read format at
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw , see Papers #1 and #2 of the "Selected
Papers" section.

I would never name something after myself; thanks for the vote of
confidence though.

Here is a quick capsule summary of what I have proposed in this thread.
The discussion revolves around proper values for the Planck length (L),
the Planck mass (M) and the Schwarschild radius for the proton (R).

L(conventional) = 1.6 x 10^-33 cm
M(conv.) = 2 x 10^-5 g
R(conv.) = 8.3 x 10^-61 cm

L(Discrete Fractal) = 3 x 10^-14 cm, ~ r(proton)
M(DF) = 1.2 x 10^-24 g, ~ m(proton)
R(DF) = 0.8 x 10^-13 cm, ~ r(proton)

When I compare these two competing sets of possible values, the
conventional set looks a bit like numbers that have been randomly drawn
from a mighty big hat. The Discrete Fractal paradigm's set of values
seems to me to be more natural and self-consistent.

Add to that the 6 basic properties (discussed by Sivaram and Sinha in
their Physics Review D paper cited above) which show a truly amazing
degree of self-similarity between hadrons and Kerr-Newman black holes.

Add to that the *potential* for the Discrete Fractal paradigm to unify
everything we have learned about nature over the last 200 years within
one remarkably simple conceptual framework.

And best of all, within a few years this paradigm can be definitively
vindicated, or definitively falsified, through its rigoorous and
non-adjustable prediction that the galactic dark matter is primarily
composed of Kerr-Newman black holes, with a highly specific and
discrete mass spectrum that has been quantitatively determined and
published.

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. He
knew he was making a temporary assumption. 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. 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!

Robert L. Oldershaw