swansont

That’s not how commutation relations behave. [a,b] = ab-ba If it’s zero that in no way mean a=b it just means the order you do the operation doesn’t matter How does a constant decompose into anything? And why does the exponent get inverted but not the argument?

You can make any two numbers agree with a fudge-factor that’s determined by assuming they agree.

Oh, please. Google AI makes stuff up; I’ve seen it myself

Such claims should come with a link to their source. As, you might note, others have repeatedly done in the thread.

Oh, come on. You used G to determine alpha. You have not “reproduced” anything; it’s a circular argument. But once spacetime exists and its rules apply, massless particles must move at c

You’re not answering the question. What happens to the chortons?

Terminology has meaning when discussing physics (and any topic, really). If you call something energy density, do a calculation of energy density, and talk of an excitation then you must mean energy density. A literal quantity, which you need to identify a threshold condition. Saying it’s a symbolic tool sounds like meaningless twaddle, and trying to tap-dance around making contradictory claims. What are the four dimensions? What’s curving if there’s no spacetime. What happens to the chortons after spacetime emerges?

We detect such particles, and I'd like a source that says it’s the solar wind vs our own atmosphere that shields us, but also an explanation of how this supposedly answers the questions you were asked.

The problem is assuming who gave you downvotes. Your premise is incorrect.

I don’t see you ever addressed my question about what happens to the chortons after spacetime emerges. But since chortons are formed by having a certain energy density, energy has already appeared.

So this conjecture doesn’t actually predict the proton mass, it’s fitting parameters to data. Why is the proton - which is not a fundamental particle - the basis for this? How can you account for the neutron’s different properties if the theory predicts it’s the same as the proton? How do you account for all the other baryons, which have masses higher than the proton? Why would leptons be predicted by the same framework? Why don’t we have particles for each shell? What accounts for all of the missing ones? BTW, the proton/electron mass ratio is not exactly 1836, so your error is not zero.

But you haven’t done this, right.

How does one test to confirm these properties? Being an elastic medium must have physical ramifications. So pi arises because you put it in the equation? Aren’t you just kicking the can down the road, and all this is moot? Is there a derivation of this, or is it just a guess? I don’t see anything here that allows one to do anything meaningful in figuring out details. Just the same vague buzzwords. Such as?

But what vacuum properties? This is just a house of cards built on vague notions, and we need the vague notion to be solidified before anything gets built on top of it. You’re getting ahead of yourself

That’s not how it works. People bring cases, using lawyers. Judges render decisions. Sometimes the loser of the case will appeal to a higher court, but judges don’t do that. And, as iNow implies, even if the Supreme Court found him in contempt (not likely with the justices favoring him), the US Marshals aren’t going to do anything. But that’s moot, since the court has already decided that the president isn’t subject to legal action, because the proper procedure is impeachment.

Then I don’t know what your point is. Your point about “the vacuum” isn’t at all clear in explaining what you think is going on. I don’t see any clear explanation of what these “twist loops” are supposed to be, and you don’t have any examples of anything that “results in pi” … yet you’re convinced that this happens. How can you be convinced that it happens but have no examples of the phenomenon? That fits the description of a hallucination.

Moderator NoteThere are a lot of links going back to the Human Microbes site; our rules on advertising state “We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it.” so whether it’s commercial is immaterial. Any insistence that someone go to another site to gain information need to participate in a discussion also runs afoul of the rule Also, any history of what happened elsewhere is moot. Please stay on topic.

I had asked for some specific examples where you think pi affects the physics and you did not give any. I think that going through a few would be useful. Constants don’t count if they depend on which unit system you’re using.

No the vacuum doesn’t do math. Science, and the math it uses, are our descriptions of how the universe behaves. The universe has no obligation to be understandable, but it just so happens that it seems to follow certain rules that can be described using math.

His actions have been opposed in court because it’s not directly against him. He’s not being prosecuted and it’s not a criminal proceeding. Impeachment happens on congress, not the court system. Those are all distinct things. Again, this is reported in the news. You could do us the courtesy of being at least minimally informed if you're going to have this conversation.

That was my point. Math describes the phenomenon, but if there’s no reason for the phenomenon to be biased in some way, i.e. be anisotropic, you will have symmetries. Gravity or electrostatics have no such “preference” and thus are spherically symmetric. You should expect pi to pop up.

Pi has no physical effect. Math is how we describe things. There are physical reasons for circular or spherical phenomena (perhaps symmetry-related) and waves don’t curve - they are cyclical, which means you can use a circle to describe their behavior. I think you have cause and effect bass-ackward.

How can you state it as a premise without having some examples of it?

Can you give some specific examples of this? As KJW has noted, circles and cyclic phenomena are often involved, and there’s nothing that needs to be justified about that. The ratio of circumference to diameter must have a value. Since the difference between circles is only a matter of linear scaling, that ratio is the same for all circles. Nothing mystical about this at all.

jv1 has been added