🚀 go-pugleaf

$                CANCELL *ALL* Ph.Tivity degrees.!!
Tom Roberts wrote: > > Joe Fischer wrote:
> Hmmm. That basically comes from writing down the Lagrangians for all
> known forces and examining their coupling constants. The one for Gravity
> is smaller than the others by an enormous factor. For instance, between
> two electrons at a given distance the ratio of gravitational force to
> electrostatic force is about 10^-42 -- that is INCREDIBLY TINY.

Even "MiCRO", in YAB-a-dab-a-doo "infinitesimal piece of spacetime".!!
i.e. The MORE "incredibly tiny" a Blackhole, the MORE "micro" it is.!! 

>         Need I point out that this is in the Newtonian gravitation
>         approximation to GR, -=-

You SURELY have your ASS ..backwards, before the cart there, Dimwit.!!

>         -=-    so "gravitational force" does indeed make sense?
> 
> >            What would any of the intermoleular or even intraatomic
> > forces be at the distance of one astronomical unit?
> 
> Who cares? If you want to compare the strengths of forces, you should
> compare them at the same distance. And you should use normal charges
> appropriate for the forces involved.

$                  ABSORBED photon mass MEASURED.!!
  PHOTON mass, h*fL / c^2 = {mph} = 2*pi*h / tp*c^2 = hbar / ls*c.!!

  Go-go Google GROUP SEARCH < My BiGGER bang > ..a FiNE STRUCTURE.!!
 
> It seems you are so accustomed to the electrical neutrality of ordinary
> objects that you just don't fathom how strong EM forces really are --
> they are ENORMOUS compared to gravity. Why do you think scrap iron
> weighing many tons is easily lifted by an electromagnet (that is MUCH
> smaller than either the earth or the iron)? And electrostatic forces
> between charged objects can be MUCH larger than that....
> 
> >            It even seems that use of  the word "force" to describe
> > all aspects of gravity fails to convey the correct meaning to the
> > various processes.
> 
> Yes. -=-

$ GR PREDiCTs that "TWO (2) GR-WORLD-TEST-mass WiLL NOT ATTRACT".!!

$             Shortage of GR-CONTRADiCTiON observation:
      QM predicts ONLY probabilities ..AFTER many observations.
      SR predicts ONLY iNTRiNSiC e = RESTmass*c^2; m = e / c^2.
$     GTR predicts ONLY that TWO GR-TEST-mass will NOT attract.
      [ This GTR (GR) PREDiCTiON has NEVER been MEASURED yet ].
      [ Because GR CONTRADiCTORY observations don't GET MADE ].

$ GR-TEST-mass is mass ..or WOULD be if it COULD HAVE mass in GR.!!

> -=- But the ratio of coupling constants in the Lagrangian -=-

Duh...
$            NEW SI GUESS iSS CODATA LaGrangian L:
L = h*fL = nL*h*c / wl = nA*{mph}*ls*c^2 / rA = m1*c^2 = [mph]*c^2
= E - eM - eV = eK - eV = eM - eF = [(m1*v1^2 / 2)*(m1/M1 + 1)] .!!

You'll NEED, essentially, iN THEORY, a *well-defined* LaGrangian.!!
(Question: Why'd dimwits ALL stick to lunatic-Tivity LaGrangians.?)

LiGHT velocity c is NOW a MATHEMATiCAL constant ..just as is, pi.!!

LiGHT velocity v VARiEs, inversely, WiTH the path-PARTiCLE-COUNT.!!
 
$ There is NO GR way down.

                          brian a m stuckless
  >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>

> -=- is a useful comparison.
> 
> Tom Roberts     tjroberts@lucent.com
Re: I Believe That General Relativity Accurately Describes Nature
 and that the results given by the math are essentially correct.