Discrete Fractal Scaling for Gravitaton?

Since Uncle Al's silence tells us something important but leaves a
physics question unanswered, I will complete the discussion myself.

(1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been
measured within an Atomic Scale system.


(2) Virtually every physicist will tell you he/she is 100% certain
that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs applies within Atomic Scale systems and
everywhere else in the Universe.


(3) Given (1), is (2) viable? Definitely not! Assumption (2) is pure
speculation, and indicates an unscientific attitude.


(4) Are there alternatives to (2)? Yes! And at least one very natural
and promising new paradigm. It is called Discrete Scale Relativity
and
you can explore this completely different understanding of nature at
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .


(5) So what does Discrete Scale Relativity offer to make the time
spent studying it worthwhile?


(a) Explains the meaning of Planck's constant.
(b) Explains the meaning of the fine structure constant.
(c) Retrodicts the correct radius for the hydrogen atom.
(d) First correct Gravitational Bohr Radius.
(e) Correct radius of the proton.
(f) Correct mass of the proton with Kerr-Newman solution of GR+EM.
(g) Resolution of the Vacuum Energy Density Crisis.
(h) Correct range of galactic radii.
(i) Correct galactic spin periods.
(j) Correct binding energy for H atom.
(k) Much improved Planck Scale that is self-consistent and sensible.


Yours in science,
RLO
http://independent.academia.edu/RobertLOldershaw

Knecht wrote:
Since Uncle Al's silence tells us something important but leaves a
physics question unanswered, I will complete the discussion myself.

(1) The value of the gravitational coupling factor G' has never been
measured within an Atomic Scale system.

True. The gravitational force is very, very difficult
to measure as it is so small, and it is utterly swamped
by the electromagnetic forces between the particles
comprising an atom.



(2) Virtually every physicist will tell you he/she is 100% certain
that G = 6.67 x 10^-8 cgs applies within Atomic Scale systems and
everywhere else in the Universe.

False. Perhaps you've been polling the wrong physicists.
There is quite a bit of ongoing research looking at trying to
measure the gravitational force at short distances.

One line of thought is that if there are extra dimensions
(beyond 3 spatial dimensions) that happen to be "curled up",
some of the gravitational field will be "lost" to our 3D world,
resulting in the observed relative weakness of the
gravitational field as compared to the other forces. It should
then behave in a manner other than inverse square at very close
ranges.

On Aug 8, 6:40*pm, "Greg Neill" wrote:

True. *The gravitational force is very, very difficult
to measure as it is so small, and it is utterly swamped
by the electromagnetic forces between the particles
comprising an atom.

A nice example of someone blindly assuming that gravitation is "weak"
within an atom, when in fact we have no scientific knowledge of its
strength or "weakness". You might want to look at:

http://independent.academia.edu/Robe.../Papers#d84954


False. *Perhaps you've been polling the wrong physicists.
There is quite a bit of ongoing research looking at trying to
measure the gravitational force at short distances.

Very Important: gravitation is not a "force" and the issue is not
measuring G at ever-smaller length scale resolution. Rather the issue
is measuring G inside an atom [which can be relatively "large" in case
of Rydberg atoms], as opposed to measuring G in interactions external
to Atomic Scale systems.


One line of thought is that if there are extra dimensions
(beyond 3 spatial dimensions) that happen to be "curled up",
some of the gravitational field will be "lost" to our 3D world,
resulting in the observed relative weakness of the
gravitational field as compared to the other forces. *It should
then behave in a manner other than inverse square at very close
ranges.

Again, you assume that the unjustified Assumption (2) is
unquestionally valid, even in the absence of any scientific support.
What does it take to get humans to question their faith-based
assumptions?

Yours in science,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Aug 8, 6:40 pm, "Greg Neill" wrote:

True. The gravitational force is very, very difficult
to measure as it is so small, and it is utterly swamped
by the electromagnetic forces between the particles
comprising an atom.

A nice example of someone blindly assuming that gravitation is "weak"
within an atom, when in fact we have no scientific knowledge of its
strength or "weakness". You might want to look at:

http://independent.academia.edu/Robe.../Papers#d84954


Silly. There is currently no evidence of anomalistic departure
from strict inverse square behaviour for gravitation at any
small scale. Granted, absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence, but until it's observed it is not fact.


False. Perhaps you've been polling the wrong physicists.
There is quite a bit of ongoing research looking at trying to
measure the gravitational force at short distances.

Very Important: gravitation is not a "force" and the issue is not
measuring G at ever-smaller length scale resolution. Rather the issue
is measuring G inside an atom [which can be relatively "large" in case
of Rydberg atoms], as opposed to measuring G in interactions external
to Atomic Scale systems.

Obfuscation is not relevant. Gravity manifests as an observable
force between masses. In one sentence you say that gravity is not
a force, yet in the next you you claim that the issue is
measuring G, which is a force coupling constant. Methinks you
are had waving with unsusual gusto.



One line of thought is that if there are extra dimensions
(beyond 3 spatial dimensions) that happen to be "curled up",
some of the gravitational field will be "lost" to our 3D world,
resulting in the observed relative weakness of the
gravitational field as compared to the other forces. It should
then behave in a manner other than inverse square at very close
ranges.

Again, you assume that the unjustified Assumption (2) is
unquestionally valid, even in the absence of any scientific support.
What does it take to get humans to question their faith-based
assumptions?

Are you now claiming not to be human?

On Aug 8, 11:05*pm, "Greg Neill" wrote:


Obfuscation is not relevant. *Gravity manifests as an observable
force between masses. *In one sentence you say that gravity is not
a force, yet in the next you you claim that the issue is
measuring G, which is a force coupling constant. *Methinks you
are had waving with unsusual gusto.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Have you ever heard of General Relativity. It is our best theory of
gravitation and one of mankind's proudest achievements. It says that
gravitation is not a ghostly "force" between objects but rather an
interaction between spacetime geometry and matter. Worth learning
about!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you now claiming not to be human?

--------------------------------------------------------------

No!

Yours in science,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in message
...
On Aug 8, 11:05 pm, "Greg Neill" wrote:


Obfuscation is not relevant. Gravity manifests as an observable
force between masses. In one sentence you say that gravity is not
a force, yet in the next you you claim that the issue is
measuring G, which is a force coupling constant. Methinks you
are had waving with unsusual gusto.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Have you ever heard of General Relativity. It is our best theory of
gravitation
==============================================
Bull****. Prove it, you fraud.

On Aug 9, 1:16*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in ...
On Aug 8, 11:05 pm, "Greg Neill" wrote:



Obfuscation is not relevant. Gravity manifests as an observable
force between masses. In one sentence you say that gravity is not
a force, yet in the next you you claim that the issue is
measuring G, which is a force coupling constant. Methinks you
are had waving with unsusual gusto.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Have you ever heard of General Relativity. It is our best theory of
gravitation
==============================================
Bull****. Prove it, you fraud.
__________________________________________________


I prefer to let the anti-relativists tread water alone in their vast
ignorance.

I feel pity for them, and hold out some hope that they will evolve
into a more intelligent species.

Yours in science,
RLO

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in message
...
On Aug 9, 1:16 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
...
On Aug 8, 11:05 pm, "Greg Neill" wrote:



Obfuscation is not relevant. Gravity manifests as an observable
force between masses. In one sentence you say that gravity is not
a force, yet in the next you you claim that the issue is
measuring G, which is a force coupling constant. Methinks you
are had waving with unsusual gusto.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Have you ever heard of General Relativity. It is our best theory of
gravitation
==============================================
Bull****. Prove it, you fraud.
__________________________________________________


I prefer to let the anti-relativists tread water alone in their vast
ignorance.
=============================================
So you prove you are a snob as well as a fraud, unable to defend
your bull****. Well done, lying ignorant ****in' idiot.
As the OP mistypes, Methinks you are hand-waving with usual gusto.

On Aug 9, 8:50*pm, "Androcles" wrote:

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in messagenews:46a8bd0a-af41-4f2d-9b77-
I prefer to let the anti-relativists tread water alone in their vast
ignorance.
=============================================

Thanks for your thoughts.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in message
...
On Aug 9, 8:50 pm, "Androcles" wrote:

So you prove you are a snob as well as a fraud, unable to defend
your bull****. Well done, lying ignorant ****in' snipping head-up-your-arse
idiot.
As the OP mistypes, Methinks you are hand-waving with usual gusto.