robert bristow-johnson
Dec6-04, 07:16 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>in article 861c1b21.0411271409.12b99369@posting.google.com, alistair at\nalistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 11/28/2004 07:02:\n\n> Paul Dirac thought that gravity was stronger in the past than it is in\n> the current era.\n\nhow would that increased strength of gravity be measured or perceived?\n\n> However the Sun would have burned up more fuel than we\n> know it has,had Dirac been right. But if the electric force had also\n> been stronger in the past,could it have stopped the rate of\n> consumption of fuel in the Sun from increasing?\n\nby "stronger electric force", do you mean a larger value for the\nFine-structure constant?\n\n> Would a greater strength for the gravitational field\n> in the early universe explain how galaxies formed so quickly?\n\nwould you take a look at http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0110060 ?\n\nDuff, Okun, and Veneziano:\nTrialogue on the number of fundamental constants\n\nand, in particular, at the section titled "The operationally\nindistinguishable world of Mr. Tompkins" and ask yourself the question how\nwould such a difference in G make a perceptual difference in how anyone\nwould see the universe. if somehow G was bigger, yet if *all* dimensionless\nconstants remained the same, then all lengths and times would be bigger and\nall masses would be smaller (by sqrt(G)) and we would not know the\ndifference.\n\nif someone said that the Fine-structure constant (or any other dimensionless\nconstant) is measured to be smaller or larger sometime in the past, that\nwould make sense because it would mean something, but it doesn\'t for a\ndimensionful constant since the are a construction of the units we use.\nthat is how i understand what Duff and company are trying to tell us. if G\nis somehow measured against an independent and like dimensioned quantity, a\nchange in that dimensionless ratio has real meaning. but what would that\nstandard, that G is measured against, be?\n\nr b-j\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>in article 861c1b21.0411271409.12b99369@posting.google.com, alistair at
alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 11/28/2004 07:02:
> Paul Dirac thought that gravity was stronger in the past than it is in
> the current era.
how would that increased strength of gravity be measured or perceived?
> However the Sun would have burned up more fuel than we
> know it has,had Dirac been right. But if the electric force had also
> been stronger in the past,could it have stopped the rate of
> consumption of fuel in the Sun from increasing?
by "stronger electric force", do you mean a larger value for the
Fine-structure constant?
> Would a greater strength for the gravitational field
> in the early universe explain how galaxies formed so quickly?
would you take a look at http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110060 ?
Duff, Okun, and Veneziano:
Trialogue on the number of fundamental constants
and, in particular, at the section titled "The operationally
indistinguishable world of Mr. Tompkins" and ask yourself the question how
would such a difference in G make a perceptual difference in how anyone
would see the universe. if somehow G was bigger, yet if *all* dimensionless
constants remained the same, then all lengths and times would be bigger and
all masses would be smaller (by \sqrt(G)) and we would not know the
difference.
if someone said that the Fine-structure constant (or any other dimensionless
constant) is measured to be smaller or larger sometime in the past, that
would make sense because it would mean something, but it doesn't for a
dimensionful constant since the are a construction of the units we use.
that is how i understand what Duff and company are trying to tell us. if G
is somehow measured against an independent and like dimensioned quantity, a
change in that dimensionless ratio has real meaning. but what would that
standard, that G is measured against, be?
r b-j
alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 11/28/2004 07:02:
> Paul Dirac thought that gravity was stronger in the past than it is in
> the current era.
how would that increased strength of gravity be measured or perceived?
> However the Sun would have burned up more fuel than we
> know it has,had Dirac been right. But if the electric force had also
> been stronger in the past,could it have stopped the rate of
> consumption of fuel in the Sun from increasing?
by "stronger electric force", do you mean a larger value for the
Fine-structure constant?
> Would a greater strength for the gravitational field
> in the early universe explain how galaxies formed so quickly?
would you take a look at http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110060 ?
Duff, Okun, and Veneziano:
Trialogue on the number of fundamental constants
and, in particular, at the section titled "The operationally
indistinguishable world of Mr. Tompkins" and ask yourself the question how
would such a difference in G make a perceptual difference in how anyone
would see the universe. if somehow G was bigger, yet if *all* dimensionless
constants remained the same, then all lengths and times would be bigger and
all masses would be smaller (by \sqrt(G)) and we would not know the
difference.
if someone said that the Fine-structure constant (or any other dimensionless
constant) is measured to be smaller or larger sometime in the past, that
would make sense because it would mean something, but it doesn't for a
dimensionful constant since the are a construction of the units we use.
that is how i understand what Duff and company are trying to tell us. if G
is somehow measured against an independent and like dimensioned quantity, a
change in that dimensionless ratio has real meaning. but what would that
standard, that G is measured against, be?
r b-j