Quantum Space is not Macro Realm Space

Quantum space its particles,and atoms. Macro space(our space) Its elements and stars TreBert

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 01:43:15 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"
wrote:

Quantum space its particles,and atoms. Macro space(our space) Its elements and stars TreBert

I think this is science's main problem, Bert. Scientists agree with
you that quantum space is different from macro space, and that is why
it is so difficult for them to form a theory of gravitation that
includes both relativity and quantum mechanics.

Intuitively, it seems to me that there is only the difference of SIZE.
So the properties of space would not change, would not be different
just because the size changes. It is merely OUR PERCEPTION of
space-time that yields differences between the large and the small.

Wolter's and oc's idea of space-time resolves these problems. When
one sees space-time as having physical and energetic properties that
can not only warp and curve, but can also MOVE, can also HAVE MOTION,
then one can see the resolution to the problem between the large and
the small, between quantum mechanics and relativity.

It will begin with further study of the Casimir effect. Scientists
will eventually figure out that the Casimir effect is caused by
gravitation. Even Einstein thought that the electrical masses of the
electron are held together by gravitational force. When it is finally
and "officially" discovered that Einstein was correct, and that the
Casimir effect is caused by gravitation, the marriage of quantum
mechanics and the general theory of relativity will be consummated.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"G=EMC^2" wrote in message
news:6888742.741.1317458595969.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqjw35...
Quantum space its particles,and atoms. Macro space(our space) Its elements
and stars TreBert

So, by that reasoning "elements" consist of something other than "atoms" ???
Now go and get your "No Bell" you babbling moron.

On Oct 1, 9:52*am, Painius wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 01:43:15 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"

wrote:
Quantum space its particles,and atoms. Macro space(our space) Its elements and stars * TreBert

I think this is science's main problem, Bert. *Scientists agree with
you that quantum space is different from macro space, and that is why
it is so difficult for them to form a theory of gravitation that
includes both relativity and quantum mechanics.

Intuitively, it seems to me that there is only the difference of SIZE.
So the properties of space would not change, would not be different
just because the size changes. *It is merely OUR PERCEPTION of
space-time that yields differences between the large and the small.

Wolter's and oc's idea of space-time resolves these problems. *When
one sees space-time as having physical and energetic properties that
can not only warp and curve, but can also MOVE, can also HAVE MOTION,
then one can see the resolution to the problem between the large and
the small, between quantum mechanics and relativity.

It will begin with further study of the Casimir effect. *Scientists
will eventually figure out that the Casimir effect is caused by
gravitation. *Even Einstein thought that the electrical masses of the
electron are held together by gravitational force. *When it is finally
and "officially" discovered that Einstein was correct, and that the
Casimir effect is caused by gravitation, the marriage of quantum
mechanics and the general theory of relativity will be consummated.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
*http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

Doesn't this gravity formula of escape velocity work the same for
atoms?

Escape Velocity
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/as...scape_velocity

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Oct 1, 1:43*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:
Quantum space its particles,and atoms. Macro space(our space) Its elements and stars * TreBert

According to this online calculator for macro realm escape velocity:
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/as...scape_velocity

The atom obviously doesn’t have to play by the same laws of orbital
physics (unless the electron represents a singularity that has
entirely different laws), because regular or perhaps even quantum
gravity alone doesn’t keep that tiny atom glued together. Clearly the
other forces are superior to gravity, but at what reduced radii do
these other atomic forces take over?

In other words, at 2.7 k or perhaps colder, what is the maximum radii
that any atom can become without fear of its vibrating or orbiting
electrons reaching escape velocity?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Painius Quantum space before the BB was"false vacuum" A tiny rip appeared in this spacetime fabric and a bubble emmerged This bubble created the space we have today(vacuum) Im talking the start of BB.Bubble got bigger and bigger untill it became our universe. Next question please. TreBert PS in the time of the false vacuum none of the sub-particles had any mass. Did the Higgs boson give them mass? I think so. We are now giving space its just importance. It also evolves. Interesting yes? I brought out in this post The old vacuum made a transition to a new vacuum. That's me Go figure TreBert

YOU'RE PROBABLY RIGHT, BEERT, VACUUMS SUCK!

SO DO YOU!

Saul Levy


On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:04:50 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"
wrote:

Painius Quantum space before the BB was"false vacuum" A tiny rip
appeared in this spacetime fabric and a bubble emmerged This bubble
created the space we have today(vacuum) Im talking the start of
BB.Bubble got bigger and bigger untill it became our universe. Next
question please. TreBert PS in the time of the false vacuum none of
the sub-particles had any mass. Did the Higgs boson give them mass? I
think so. We are now giving space its just importance. It also
evolves. Interesting yes? I brought out in this post The old
vacuum made a transition to a new vacuum. That's me Go figure TreBert

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 06:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
wrote:

On Oct 1, 9:52*am, Painius wrote:
On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 01:43:15 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"

wrote:
Quantum space its particles,and atoms. Macro space(our space) Its elements and stars * TreBert

I think this is science's main problem, Bert. *Scientists agree with
you that quantum space is different from macro space, and that is why
it is so difficult for them to form a theory of gravitation that
includes both relativity and quantum mechanics.

Intuitively, it seems to me that there is only the difference of SIZE.
So the properties of space would not change, would not be different
just because the size changes. *It is merely OUR PERCEPTION of
space-time that yields differences between the large and the small.

Wolter's and oc's idea of space-time resolves these problems. *When
one sees space-time as having physical and energetic properties that
can not only warp and curve, but can also MOVE, can also HAVE MOTION,
then one can see the resolution to the problem between the large and
the small, between quantum mechanics and relativity.

It will begin with further study of the Casimir effect. *Scientists
will eventually figure out that the Casimir effect is caused by
gravitation. *Even Einstein thought that the electrical masses of the
electron are held together by gravitational force. *When it is finally
and "officially" discovered that Einstein was correct, and that the
Casimir effect is caused by gravitation, the marriage of quantum
mechanics and the general theory of relativity will be consummated.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
*http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

Doesn't this gravity formula of escape velocity work the same for
atoms?

Escape Velocity
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/as...scape_velocity

What exactly do you think you're made of, Brad?

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

Best read very well received paper by Schwarz on the strength of gravity in the quantum realm. That gives great reality to G=EMC^2 equation. TreBert

WHAT REALITY WHEN THE UNITS JUST DON'T WORK, BEERTbrainMORONIDIOT?

YOU STUPID SENILE OLD FOOL!

Saul Levy


On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 02:16:56 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"
wrote:

Best read very well received paper by Schwarz on the strength of gravity in
the quantum realm. That gives great reality to G=EMC^2 equation.
TreBert