MigL

These advances come about by the limited application of uantum Mechanical thinking to purely classical ideas. Makes you wonder how many 'secrets' a full Quantum Gravity theory will unlock.

Even vaccines work that way. They provide a blueprint ( or a map, if you like the GPS guided bomb analogy ), so that you body's own defenses can target the specific intrusive virus, with antibodies.

The concept of 'value' has no meaning unless you specify to whom. There is no such thing as 'intrinsic value'.

I remember when we used to discuss science. Now we discuss the differing definitions of 'chicken' and 'egg'. Personally, I like eggs more than chicken. ( over easy, so I can dip my toast )

There is nly one rest mass, that being measured in the rest frame. That is the only mass I'm considering. If you were sitting on a planet 13 Billion years ago, and it underwent a linear downscaling of 1000, of the type you propose ( 1000 times smaller and 1000 times less massive ), it would now be 1000000 times more dense, and you could find yourself sitting on the event horizon of a Black Hole. Without any cause, simply the passage of time. IOW, physical laws are no longer invariant with the passage of time. That would be a strange universe if physical laws could change at any moment.

That's why I try my best not to be 'sociable'. Yes I do !!!

What we have gotten from you is that size reduction of atoms works, and mass can reduce linearly, because atoms are mostly empty space. That 'empty' space, however contains fields, such that the mass of a hydrogen atom is composed of about 2 % from the rest masses of its three quarks and one electron; the other 98 % is chromodynamic and electrodynamic binding energy. Reducing the radius of a sperical mass, while keeping density the same would result in a mass of 1/8 the original. If it weighs 1/2 the original, as you propose, then you have added/created binding energy, even if the number of constituent particles remains the same, and have effectively increased the density. Since density can be a parameter for such things as Black Hole formation, it would also be a factor in large scale cosmological structures.

I just read the posts in the other thread about the war in Ukraine, that Facebook is allowing posts advocating violence against Russians an d V Putin. This may be well intentioned, but is further politicising social media, and, in my opinion, not a good move. It would be a 'slippery slope' argument, but what happens when they start doing that with other issues related to Politics and social agendas ?

Not sure. But our Canadian Government talks big when it comes to addressing AGW, but does very little. I am seriously considering going electric for my next vehicle, but unless the Government re-invests gasoline taxes and carbon taxes into the infrastructure needed for EV operation in a country as 'distributed' as Canada, it may turn out to be a very impractical decision.

Absolutely ! Social media's algorithms feed your biases and like opinions back yo you, re-enforcing them. Like a confirmation bias feedback loop; and the more sensationalist, the more amplification. A large majority of people get their news from such social media sources. What could possibly go wrong ? ( I am not on any social media, nor do I plan to be )

Reports of a lot of Russians fleeing the oppressive Putin regime. Finland is receiving quite a few. If he is still around in 10 years time, will V Putin then be able to say "We are invading NAZI Finland to protect our Russian speaking brothers from oppression."

Supersymmetry is now fairly old. ( it was about 10 yrs old, when I first read about it in the 80s ) That is what happened with Sstring/M theory. Unfortunately, in these areas, theory has vastly outpaced observational capabilities. Sometimes beautiful math isn't enough. ( but you insights are instructional and always valued )

Politicians make bad laws most of the time; makes you wonder what they get paid for. Then if a case is brought up, the Supreme Court has to decide whether it is Contitutional. The political leanings of SCJ play a great role in this decision, and why each party tries to fill vacancies with politically like-minded judges. ( to tie it into another thread )

You don't seem to want to address the problems pointed out by forum members. Simply put, in a 3Dimensional space, length and mass don't scale in a way that keeps the Physics unchanged. You either have the violation of mass/energy conservation at the local level, along with ( as you claim ) violation of time symmetry ( Noether's theorem ), yet we know conservation laws hold locally, and there are time reversible processes. Or, you have gravitational changes at the large, or cosmological, scales, such as the laws of gravity being different at cosmological distances, such as galaxies being differently shaped or stars burning hotter/cooler, etc., yet we don't observe any of that either. So other than a mental exercise in "What if ?", what exactly are you hoping to accomplish ?

You can understand the science behind AGW, and be fully aware of the consequences, yet, when you see things like "The world will end in 20 years" or "There will be no humans left", you reaize there are nut-bars on both sides. What the Ukraine situation has proven, is that people are willing to endure the pain of high gas and energy prices, if they perceive it as a good cause. But, when all that happens during shortages, is oil companies lobbying the governments to increase profits or production will decrease even further, to the tune of astronomical profits of over $20 billion in 2021 for companies like Shell or Mobil, you start asking why we are enduring the pain for them to profit. Or why J Biden is dealing with another ( just as bad ) dictator in Venezuela to make up for the losses from the previous dictator that supplied us, yet refuses Canadian oil even though we have , and use, technology to produce it just as clean. By all means have a fair tax on fossil fuels, but re-invest this tax on infrastructure to facilitate the use of electric vehicles. Off-shore wind farms, Solar panel farms in the South-west, along with distribution grids. And major investments in nuclear fusion.

Or, he's speaking of the electroweak era, before a symmetry break and the Higgs mechanism gave particles their current mass. Prior to that, all were massless. Can't find the original paper, yet. Just your link.

How does this come up in the hiring process? And what makes you think a rich person would want to work for you ? As for College/university admission, the only hurdle is tuition; if you can afford that ( and are qualified ) you are in. Your social status never even comes up, and is not rquired to be disclosed. ( or am I thinking Canada, and not US ? ) Although that hurdle is becoming higher and higher. And yes, people have received jail time for 'buying' their kids way into prestigious schools. ( Lori Loughlin and her husband )

The main difference is that an expanding universe is only observed at a specific separation ( intergalactic scales ). The concept of energy conservation is not applicable globally. It is, however, applicable locally. And a "shrinking' universe cannot be supported locally.

Quantum Mechanics does have some element of "we're not allowed to know". It has a name, and is well accounted for in a theory that has been tested countless times, and has great predictive powers. It is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Please do so. The universe has expande roughly 1040 times its original size since the recombination era of the CMB ( easily calculated by the ratio of Hydrogen ionization temperature to current CMB temperature, simple gas law ) If we use your simplistic approach that actually everything in the universe has shrunk about 1000 times, that applies to everything, not just atoms. Decreasing the radius of an object by half, while keeping density constant, .requires that its mass, proportional to the cube root of the radius, decreases to 1/8. If you claim that its mass only decreases to half the original weight, then its density must increase 4 times ( proportional to r2 ). According to your proposal, that would mean, that if everything shrank by about 1000 times, the the mass of planets, stars and galaxies has also decreased by about 1000 times, and that would mean they increased in density immensly. By a million times ! The majority of stars would be Black Holes by now. Maybe you should closely consider Markus' comments about scaling. Your theory doesn't seem to 'scale' very well.

Mine also. But there are many others similarly underated by their contemporaries.

It also looks like the Russians have lost their momentum and the Ukrainians a beginning to re-take their cities. Ukraine LIVE: Putin invasion ruined as airport AND city 'retaken' – claims 11k troops dead | World | News | Express.co.uk Seems they were particularly unprepaed for the winter thaw conditions, and how it impairs their mobility re-supply and logistics. Napoleon and Hitler must be turning over in their graves at the irony of the Russian army attacking another country in the winter, and losing, along with massive casualties, due to weather and conditions.

FFS, really? So needless A tyrant is a tyrant, and defined by his actions; what he ( or we ) choose to label his ideology is not really relevant. ( I think the reaction is funnier than the comment, JC )

So, in your 'model' if you reduced the radius of the Earth by half, it would have half the mass ? Did you not say everything scaled accordingly so as to preserve physical laws/relationships ?

Not quite. A Guth's intent with inflation was to explain the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe. For distant parts of the universe, where light ( and information ) can never be in contact to establish isotropy/homogeneity, there had to have been a time in the past, where/when these distant parts were in causal contact ( light/information could traverse the distance between them ). Inflation provided the mechanism, and slots in well with the electroweak symmetry break, and Higgs mechanism. Dark Energy, Cosmological Constant; different names, same function. If there are a lot of atoms, there is a lot of mass/energy/momentum and therefore a lot of gravity. Did you read, and were you able to comprehend, the rest of my post, and that the Cosmological Constant has to exceed the threshold of the gravitational bound for expansion to occurr ? This only happens in intergalactic spaces where the concentration of mass/energy is low enough such that gravity is negligible, and exceeded by the Cosmological constant ( do you prefer dark energy ? ). Or they didn't need to be, saving us the problems associated with scaling of other forces ( as Markus has repeatedly mentioned ), because observations agree just fine with expansion.