Genady

Me too.

+1

Hint. Here he is asking, "5 can be equal to 2? 5 can't be equal to 2?"

He is doing the former, not the latter.

Actually, he is. Here is how: Firstly, he is i.e., he is calculating the ratio, (universe volume)/(SU(3) effective volume). Then, he is dividing the energy density by this ratio, i.e., he is calculating, (energy density)/(universe volume)*(SU(3) effective volume). Or, equivalently, (energy density)*(SU(3) effective volume)/(universe volume). So, he is in fact

This part is correct: 😉 He has a mathematical reason to say "if".

Why the professor says "if"?

So, the paper indeed divides the energy per volume by the number of atoms in the universe, as I've suspected earlier. Here: Such calculation not only is not natural, but it does not make sense. It rather represents "numerology", as others have already suggested.

I'm sorry to say, but this does not answer my question. I rephrase. How is energy per "atom" converted to energy per volume?

This division by number of "atoms" results in energy per "atom", while the observed low value of energy density is energy per volume. These two numbers have different units. How can they be compared?

I see. Would you elaborate, why a density, which already represents a value divided by volume, is further divided by number of the "atoms" in the universe?

Can you elaborate on the second possibility? When they divide the volume of the universe by the volume of proton, if the former increases, wouldn't the ratio increase?

This hypothesis predicts that cosmological constant grows as the scale factor a(t), doesn't it? Or, rather, as a cube of this factor?

He may: my wife's brother, a registered PA Republican, wrote to her a couple of days ago, "I’m making a Felon - Hillbilly - 2024 sign today to post near our township election location. It’ll be my first democratic vote since McGovern in 1972."

Why "to each other" and not to themselves?

Perhaps in SFn his posts would go to Speculations while Galileo's ones would be in the Sciences.

Do I understand correctly that this is a Speculation rather than a science of Astronomy and Cosmology?

What do you think about Giordano Bruno in this respect?

The reason is given in the post above yours:

No, it does not. Ditto. No, they cannot.

No, it is not. Your examples do not employ quantum entanglement.

My way of dealing with that is simple: ignore and vote. My wife and I voted a few weeks ago.

I don't think it is a factor for many of his supporters. Certainly not for this relative of mine, writing in his email three days ago,

Yes, of course. They should be attached to something, e.g., two galaxies.

It is the same. Shortening of the moving object is shortening of the distance between two ends of the object, i.e., between two spatial points. In any case, distance between two points in a frame where they move is shorter than distance between them in a frame where they are at rest.