Can the force of gravity overcome the Planck force?

Can the force of gravity overcome the Planck force?
I remember that a long time ago I read that in the universe the Planck force was the maximum force that could be reached. But when Sagittarius A and the black hole at the center of the Andomeda galaxy approach, I have made the calculation that their gravitational attraction force will exceed that of Planck when they are approximately 100 million km away from each other. (Regardless of this, it is curious that if we put the constants of the GR equation on the other side we obtain precisely the Planck force, I don't know if this can make any sense)

mister i said:

I read

Where? Please give a reference.

mister i said:

the Planck force was the maximum force that could be reached

Any such claim is speculative given our best current theories of physics, which contain no such limit.

mister i said:

their gravitational attraction force

"Gravitational attraction" is not a force in GR. So even if "Planck force" is a valid concept (see my previous post), the comparison you are making would not be valid.

Planck quantities are not always the limit of our understanding of something. For example, Planck's mass is 21 micrograms, approximately the mass of a single eyelash.

PeterDonis said:

Please give a reference.

It doesn't really matter. If it says that, it's nonsense. Planck units are not the limit of anything. The Planck resistance is 30 ohms.

mister i said:

I have made the calculation that their gravitational attraction force will exceed that of Planck when they are approximately 100 million km away from each other.

Incorrectly, I am afraid.

M31's SMBH has a radius of ~500M km. So how does it get closer than that to another object?

This will happen for BH's of any size.

Vanadium 50 said:

It doesn't really matter.

Not as far as the "Planck force" claim is concerned, no.

But it does matter as far as the OP understanding the PF rules about references, which is why I posted the question. "I read somewhere" is not a valid reference, even if we can tell that whatever was "read somewhere" must have been wrong.

I completely agree/ "I read somewhere" is not an acceptable source. The fact that what he says he read is absolute nonsense does not help.

I also think there is no limit but about references:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00662806
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210109

Your first reference is behind a paywall.

The second reference says "It is clear that a maximal acceleration or maximal temperature can come out of neither classical general relativity nor classical string theory." The paper proposes the exact opposite of what you are proposing, and further, it says the answer is (classically) "no" to the idea of a maximum force.

Why cite a paper that underlines your own case?

Vanadium 50 said:

Your first reference is behind a paywall.

The second reference says "It is clear that a maximal acceleration or maximal temperature can come out of neither classical general relativity nor classical string theory." The paper proposes the exact opposite of what you are proposing, and further, it says the answer is (classically) "no" to the idea of a maximum force.

Why cite a paper that underlines your own case?

As for the first source, it points to another source that points to another source. Leading to https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02745135 where it only states that it can calculate a maximal acceleration for a particle. Not a maximum force. Independently of how the author achieves that result, this is already different from the original claim.

Edit here is the follow up paper without paywall: Maximal Acceleration as a Consequence of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relations 1984

Thanks. However, after one paper that doesn't say what it is said to, I am done. I have played the game: "What is your source?" "Here it is." "That doesn't say what you said." "Then this one." "That doesn't say what you said either." "How about this one." It turns out this game is much more fun for the other player.

mister i said:

I also think there is no limit

Which makes the question you are asking in this thread pointless. Given that, and the issues with the references that have already been discussed, this thread is closed.