Guest254, I'm not writing this thread for your benefit. A simple solution to your having to read it is ... don't read it.
Oh geesz, OK. You make me feel bad now. The 10^-50, like I said was intended to show that quantum action required metrics below those that deal with fundamental particles. Quantum action was supposed to occur at that 10^-50 rate just for talking purposes. I mentioned I used Planck time and sped it up quite a bit.Well that's not very nice! I'm only showing an interest in your work.
Sorry dude, but with every reply you give I get less and less confident that you have any sort of reason for the number 10^{-50} other than it happens to be smaller than the Planck time! Perhaps if you explain what you mean by "quantum action required metrics"? Alternatively just explain why it's 10^{-50} - but that doesn't seem to want to happen.The 10^-50, like I said was intended to show that quantum action required metrics below those that deal with fundamental particles.
No hard feelings. I thought I answered your question honestly and courteously, and went over and over it and you couldn't help but point out that I didn't have a reason for 10^-50. I guess I should have admitted that sooner.Hey, no hard feelings! Just wish you'd told me you didn't have a reason for 10^{-50} earlier!!!
Good luck with your work.
You've lost me again! Sorry!it would employ much smaller metrics
I use the term metrics to mean measurements. It is a usage familiar to my profession, management accounting, and maybe unfamiliar to you.You've lost me again! Sorry!
Ah, ok. Metric has a very different meaning in physics. This might have been unfamiliar to you!I use the term metrics to mean measurements. It is a usage familiar to my profession, management accounting, and maybe unfamiliar to you.
Good God no!So are you saying that your profession is physics?
My issue was, and still is, genuine confusion with regards the number 10^{-50}! I don't see how you arrived at this result. However, this is your thread so if you don't want to talk about it that's fine!I don't doubt that but why the interest in pushing the issue about the 10^-50.
You're not "genuinely confused", but you are being passive aggressive about something. It could be that I offended you in some of my statements here or elsewhere and you find that a little pay back on my thread is fair.Good God no!
My issue was, and still is, genuine confusion with regards the number 10^{-50}! I don't see how you arrived at this result. However, this is your thread so if you don't want to talk about it that's fine!
Those are not bad analogies.I probably need more prerequisite knowledge of "energy density equalization" to thoroughly understand that post.
I assume what you are getting at would be similar to particulates condensing from a super saturated liquid or maybe dew forming when humidity is to high for the given ambient temperature.