Gravitational Bohr Radius

Want to see something interesting?

The Gravitational Bohr Radius is the radius that the hydrogen atom
would have if it were dominated by the gravitational "force".

Technically, R = h(bar)/G m^2 M, where R is the GBR, h(bar) is
Planck's constant divided by 2 pi, G is the gravitational "constant",
m is the mass of the electron, and M is the mass of the proton.

If you calculate R using the conventional value of G, you get R ~ 1.2
x 10^31 cm! Bizarre!

If you calculate R using the correct value G` that applies within
Atomic Scale systems and is equal to 2.18 x 10^31 cgs, then R ~ 3.67 x
10^-8 cm, or about 2 pi times the Bohr Radius.

If you are interested in seeing where this mysterious G` comes from,
and how the scaling of G for the Discrete Fractal Paradigm can
correctly retrodict the radius of the proton, or of an atom, or of a
pulsar, or of a star, or of a galaxy, or ..., then go to www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
and have a look.

Be sure to check out the latest "New Development", which uses G` to
finally explain the meaning of the fine structure constant.


Enjoy,
Knecht
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

On Sep 17, 7:56 pm, Knecht wrote:
Want to see something interesting?

The Gravitational Bohr Radius is the radius that the hydrogen atom
would have if it were dominated by the gravitational "force".

Technically, R = h(bar)/G m^2 M, where R is the GBR, h(bar) is
Planck's constant divided by 2 pi, G is the gravitational "constant",
m is the mass of the electron, and M is the mass of the proton.

If you calculate R using the conventional value of G, you get R ~ 1.2
x 10^31 cm! Bizarre!

If you calculate R using the correct value G` that applies within
Atomic Scale systems and is equal to 2.18 x 10^31 cgs, then R ~ 3.67 x
10^-8 cm, or about 2 pi times the Bohr Radius.

If you are interested in seeing where this mysterious G` comes from,
and how the scaling of G for the Discrete Fractal Paradigm can
correctly retrodict the radius of the proton, or of an atom, or of a
pulsar, or of a star, or of a galaxy, or ..., then go towww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
and have a look.

Be sure to check out the latest "New Development", which uses G` to
finally explain the meaning of the fine structure constant.

Enjoy,
Knechtwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw



Let me just add that when you use G' to recalculate the Planck scale,
the Planck mass, length and time are all closely associated with the
mass, length and time scales associated with the proton. For the
recalculation see: www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw , "Technical Notes"
section, "Revised Planck Scale".

Contrast those results with the strange and seemingly random results
one gets for the "conventional" Planck scale using G, e.g., ~10^-33
cm(!), ~10^-5 g(!!!), and ~10^-44 sec(!).

Could most of theoretical high energy physics be based upon a steaming
pile of bad assumptions?

Worth thinking about,
Knecht

-- www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw --

On Sep 17, 7:56 pm, Knecht wrote:
Want to see something interesting?

The Gravitational Bohr Radius is the radius that the hydrogen atom
would have if it were dominated by the gravitational "force".

Technically, R = h(bar)/G m^2 M, where R is the GBR, h(bar) is
Planck's constant divided by 2 pi, G is the gravitational "constant",
m is the mass of the electron, and M is the mass of the proton.

If you calculate R using the conventional value of G, you get R ~ 1.2
x 10^31 cm! Bizarre!

What's so bizarre about it? It just points out the extreme weakness
of the gravitational field versus electrostatic.

On Sep 21, 3:48 pm, Igor wrote:
On Sep 17, 7:56 pm, Knecht wrote:

Want to see something interesting?

The Gravitational Bohr Radius is the radius that the hydrogen atom
would have if it were dominated by the gravitational "force".

Technically, R = h(bar)/G m^2 M, where R is the GBR, h(bar) is
Planck's constant divided by 2 pi, G is the gravitational "constant",
m is the mass of the electron, and M is the mass of the proton.

If you calculate R using the conventional value of G, you get R ~ 1.2
x 10^31 cm! Bizarre!

What's so bizarre about it? It just points out the extreme weakness
of the gravitational field versus electrostatic.



Well, most people would regard the *concept* of an atom with a radius
of 10^31 cm as a bit weird. I realize, however, that theoretical
physicists (and especially string theorists and HEP boffins) think at
least several impossible thoughts before breakfast each morning.

I note that you completely ignore the real substance of the two posts:
that there appears to be strong *empirical* justification for thinking
that theoretical physicists have made major mistakes in assessing
nature's scaling properties. And further that there is one specific
discrete fractal scaling paradigm that provides a remarkably unified
explanation for how nature works. Conventional physics had 80 years
to explain the fine structure constant and totally failed. The
discrete fractal paradigm solved the problem in a matter of months.

Serious study of this new paradigm, of course, requires you to
consider that some of your cherished ideas might be wrong. But we are
scientists. Or are we not, my friend?

Knecht
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

On Sep 21, 8:31 pm, Knecht wrote:
On Sep 21, 3:48 pm, Igor wrote:


On Sep 17, 7:56 pm, Knecht wrote:

Want to see something interesting?

The Gravitational Bohr Radius is the radius that the hydrogen atom
would have if it were dominated by the gravitational "force".

Technically, R = h(bar)/G m^2 M, where R is the GBR, h(bar) is
Planck's constant divided by 2 pi, G is the gravitational "constant",
m is the mass of the electron, and M is the mass of the proton.

If you calculate R using the conventional value of G, you get R ~ 1.2
x 10^31 cm! Bizarre!

What's so bizarre about it? It just points out the extreme weakness
of the gravitational field versus electrostatic.

Well, most people would regard the *concept* of an atom with a radius
of 10^31 cm as a bit weird. I realize, however, that theoretical
physicists (and especially string theorists and HEP boffins) think at
least several impossible thoughts before breakfast each morning.

I note that you completely ignore the real substance of the two posts:
that there appears to be strong *empirical* justification for thinking
that theoretical physicists have made major mistakes in assessing
nature's scaling properties. And further that there is one specific
discrete fractal scaling paradigm that provides a remarkably unified
explanation for how nature works. Conventional physics had 80 years
to explain the fine structure constant and totally failed. The
discrete fractal paradigm solved the problem in a matter of months.

Serious study of this new paradigm, of course, requires you to
consider that some of your cherished ideas might be wrong. But we are
scientists. Or are we not, my friend?

Knecht
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw -


Pardon me if I keep this thread active for one more day in hope that
there is intelligent life out there somewhere.

Knecht

"Knecht" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Sep 21, 8:31 pm, Knecht wrote:
: On Sep 21, 3:48 pm, Igor wrote:
:
:
: On Sep 17, 7:56 pm, Knecht wrote:
:
: Want to see something interesting?
:
: The Gravitational Bohr Radius is the radius that the hydrogen atom
: would have if it were dominated by the gravitational "force".
:
: Technically, R = h(bar)/G m^2 M, where R is the GBR, h(bar) is
: Planck's constant divided by 2 pi, G is the gravitational
"constant",
: m is the mass of the electron, and M is the mass of the proton.
:
: If you calculate R using the conventional value of G, you get R ~
1.2
: x 10^31 cm! Bizarre!
:
: What's so bizarre about it? It just points out the extreme weakness
: of the gravitational field versus electrostatic.
:
: Well, most people would regard the *concept* of an atom with a radius
: of 10^31 cm as a bit weird. I realize, however, that theoretical
: physicists (and especially string theorists and HEP boffins) think at
: least several impossible thoughts before breakfast each morning.
:
: I note that you completely ignore the real substance of the two posts:
: that there appears to be strong *empirical* justification for thinking
: that theoretical physicists have made major mistakes in assessing
: nature's scaling properties. And further that there is one specific
: discrete fractal scaling paradigm that provides a remarkably unified
: explanation for how nature works. Conventional physics had 80 years
: to explain the fine structure constant and totally failed. The
: discrete fractal paradigm solved the problem in a matter of months.
:
: Serious study of this new paradigm, of course, requires you to
: consider that some of your cherished ideas might be wrong. But we are
: scientists. Or are we not, my friend?
:
: Knecht
: www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw -
:
:
: Pardon me if I keep this thread active for one more day in hope that
: there is intelligent life out there somewhere.
:
: Knecht

Responding to yourself is an indication of intelligence?
An intelligent person might consider that lunacy.