$ 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
I Believe That General Relativity Accurately Describes Nature
and that the results given by the math are essentially correct.