Hi Hugo,
Thanks for your interest in my web site and the two/three comments. My answers are as follows:
1. Until very recently accepted theory was happy to predict the observed Hubble rate of expansion of the universe with v being proportional to r. This theory incorporated the expected gravitational attraction between galaxies and groups of galaxies. If one removes this gravitational attraction it is clear that "one would expect a faster rate of expansion of the universe than current theory predicts". Although I predict an acceleration, compared with standard theory, I do agree that one needs to calculate in detail whether it is sufficient to fully account for the observed acceleration (which is still being assessed),
2. I treat the spin of the electron, for my purpose of gravitational stability, on a classical basis. If the electron has angular momentum then it has spin in the classical sense! This may seem naive, but I am in good company. In analysing the uranium 236 nucleus Freeman J Dyson says: " By studying this process in detail, they (Bohr and Wheeler) show how the complementary views provided by classical and quantum pictures are both essential to the understanding of nature. Without the combined power of classical and quantum concepts, the intricacies of the fission process could never have been understood."
The next point you raise is interesting and shows that perhaps I should have emphasised it more. It is our (galactic) spin relative to the very distant galaxy clusters that generates a local value of G in our region of our galaxy. For a uniform galaxy the value of G would be constant everywhere within the boundary surface of the galaxy. What I am discussing is the motion of our part of the Milky Way relative to the distant background provided by the very distant galaxy groups. For an electron, the electron's internal value of G (applying only within the boundary surface of the electron) will be again be given by the angular rotation of the electron relative to the the very distant galaxy groups.
I should add that one cannot have significant variations of G in the free space regions within the majority of the galaxy, as they would be at variance with stellar observations. I originally thought (ref 6 of paper 1) that G might have settled to a constant, steady-state, value in our galaxy, but it appears that this has not happened at the outer edges of the galaxy
.
Many thanks for your comments. I will include further clarifications, based on your comments, in the next upgrade of the web site.
Lawrence Stephenson
