MigL

There had been reports as far as 2-3 weeks ago that significant numbers ( up to 10% ) of life-long Republicans were abandoning the party. Not because the Harris campaign swayed them, but because of Trump's ineptitude, mean disparaging disposition, constant lies, and 'open mouth/insert foot' syndrome. This last week especially may have handed Kamala Harris the keys to the White House.

Who should have children? Anyone who wants that responsibility; children tend to make people better versions of themselves. Who should not have children? Mothers whose sons post inane topics on SFn, and whose name has 'FM' in it.

But the argument was specific to the proton, and its associated stability. Are ubstable neutrons not held together by those same gluons that 'represent the unbreakable SU(3) symmetry' ???

For several pages you've been making the argument that the proton is the fundamental SU(3) 'particle, because it doesn't decay, and associated 3rd law considerations. Then you make the jump to using the volume of the proton as the fundamental unit in the calculations. What thermodynamic considerations allow for a volume to be a fundamental unit ? Certainly not the same ones that allow fir a proton to be a fundamental unit. After all, other particles share a similar volume, and they are not fundamental as they decay. If you don't quit going round in circles attempting to explain yourself, you're going to get dizzy.

There are racist and sexist Democrats also; they are, after all, politicians and human. But the Republican leader, D Trump, has normalized such behavior, and so most Republicans express such behavior, and are not ashamed of openly doing so.

OK. Multiply the number of protons in the universe by 20 ( 5 % x20 = 100 % ) which gives 20 x 1080 , nowhere near 10123 though, is it ? You are actually using the VOLUME of the proton in your calculation. And still haven't justified its use.

whoah ! When you started with I was thinking something totally different. My bad !

We understand the underlying Thermodynamics, we just don't understand the 'connections' made to other phenomena. The neutron is similar, and the same as the SU(3) minimum volume; should it not be just as stable according to SU(3) stability considerations??? So if the neutron is NOT stable, IOW, it isn't the volume that matters, but the proton itself, "Why are you not using the number of protons in the calculation, instead of the volume ?"

True. While Canada has fringe far right, and fringe far left, in the US most of the Republican party, other than a handful, are the far right. And I'm talking about the political parties, not the orientation of the general population. Canada's three major parties are essentially 'centrist', while America's are now center to far right. I can similarly name many Democrats who are considerably 'right wing'.

Then why are you dividing the volume of the observable universe by the volume of a proton to get the vacuum energy adjustment ? Why not divide by the number of protons in the observable universe ? What justifies the volume consideration ????

Canadians like the Confederate flag because it looks 'cool', most have no idea what it signifies, nor do they care. I don't like PP either, a little too 'slick' for my taste ( would love to see Peter MacKay as PM ), but keep in mind that Canadian Conservatives are more liberal than American Democrats

Neutrons, being composed of the same building blocks as protons would seem to have as many states as a proton, except a much much longer lifetime.. You are using the fact that we have never seen proton decay, to assume hey never do, and the further assumption that this indicates that the proton volume is equivalent to the SU(3) stability volume because of thermodynamic considerations related to proton stability. But how is this related to the SU(3) minimum volume stability ? You cannot use the same thermodynamic considerations to argue for 'volume' stability. And 'volume' is what you are using to subdivide the unreasonably high vacuum energy, not protons.

Sorry my mistake; meant to write Helium atom. Stable, and a superfluid. Observation of a Casimir effect between separations of less than the 'proton volume' ? I can't think of a method for doing this, but , it would indicate vacuum energy must be considered at much smaller scales.

You don't see that this is an assertion with no evidence, physical or mathematical, to back it up ? It just so happens to slot into your pet theory, so you run with it. Why not pick the hydrogen atom as the remnant volume ? Or why not up/down quarks as remnant volume since they are also stable, and involved with SU(3) symmetry ? I suspect it's because it doesn't produce a neat answer with numbers that match the magnitudes you require for your pet theory. Until the foundation is solid, and if you ( the author ) can connect all the dots, it is just a theory based on numerology.

That's in the standard playbook of dictators and despots. Keep your citizens ignorant, and withhold balanced impartial news, so that they can be easily controlled. D Trump has learned from the 'best' of them. But it doesn't say much for about 70 million American voters either.