Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude.

From	Jeff-Relf.Me @.
Message-ID	<Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.27--6.33am.Seattle.2018> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <pt9edq$kid$2@gioia.aioe.org> <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.23--2.37pm.Seattle.2018> <ptdu5h$1fji$1@gioia.aioe.org> <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.25--8.12am.Seattle.2018> <ptj5hv$11h$2@gioia.aioe.org>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy, sci.physics, alt.checkmate
Subject	Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude.
Organization	blocknews - www.blocknews.net
Date	2018-11-27 06:33 -0800

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Kensi replied:
> > Lambda is mainstream, 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2, negative pressure.
> 
> But nobody expects it to actually be a fundamental constant
> rather than a quantum field of some sort.

Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude.

WikiPedia:

  The cosmological constant Λ is the simplest possible explanation
  for dark energy, and is used in the current standard
  model of cosmology known as the ΛCDM model.

> > it's negative pressure.
> 
> Which is what you get if the vacuum has a net positive energy density.

It's entropy, plain and simple.

Either that, or there's zillions of Hoover vacuums out there.

  Gravity is residual exergy, entropy is killing it off, eventually 
  leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy,
  but none of the eXergy ( as Lord Kelvin predicted, 1852 ).

Thread

Re: By definition, geniuses are rare. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-27 05:16 -0500
  Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-11-27 06:33 -0800
    Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 06:08 -0500
      Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-11-28 09:51 -0800
      Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-11-28 06:37 -0800
        Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 07:44 -0700
        Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 09:48 -0500
          99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-11-28 07:39 -0800
            Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 12:00 -0500
              Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 10:03 -0700
                Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:37 -0500
              Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:36 -0500
            Re: 99% of scientists have yet to catch up to Einstein. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:35 -0500
              The graviton, string theory, and bullshit worlds. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-11-29 06:19 -0800
                Re: The graviton, string theory, and bullshit worlds. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 10:21 -0500
                We don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-11-29 08:31 -0800
                Re: We don't know if Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-30 06:11 -0500
                Kensi's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-11-30 05:09 -0800
                Re: Relf's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-30 11:29 -0500
                Re: Relf's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-11-30 21:00 +0000
                Re: Relf's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 07:27 -0500
                Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-11-30 13:46 -0800
                Re: Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-11-30 16:41 -0600
                Re: Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 07:28 -0500
                Kensi is the KoOky one. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-12-01 06:28 -0800
                Re: Kensi is the KoOky one. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 09:33 -0500
                See ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-12-01 06:48 -0800
                Re: See ? ! kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 09:55 -0500
                I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-12-01 07:04 -0800
                Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:27 -0500
                Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 12:13 -0500
                Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-02 02:09 +0000
                Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-01 22:18 -0800
                Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-02 09:31 -0500
                Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. % <%@%> - 2018-12-02 07:35 -0700
                Re: I could be Taylor Swift, or the queen of England. Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-02 14:47 -0800
                Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 08:51 -0700
                Re: See ? ! kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:27 -0500
                Re: See ? ! "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-01 11:47 -0500
                Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 10:48 -0700
                Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 12:43 -0700
                Re: See ? ! Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-02 02:10 +0000
                Re: See ? ! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-03 07:17 -0600
                Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-03 08:05 -0700
                Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 10:48 -0700
                Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 12:44 -0700
                Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 12:49 -0700
                Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 12:54 -0700
                Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 13:02 -0700
                Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:10 -0700
                Re: See ? ! % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:22 -0700
                Re: See ? ! Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 18:43 -0700
                Re: Kensi is the KoOky one. Bob Robertson <bobrobertsontsy66@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 21:52 -0600
                Re: Kensi is the KoOky one. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 12:09 -0500
                Re: Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-01 08:51 -0700
                Re: Science FICTION sells better than the real thing $ $ $ Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-12-01 11:48 -0600
                Re: Kensi's useless, unfalsifiable assumptions. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 12:28 -0500
          Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-11-28 15:23 -0800
            Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-11-28 12:33 -0600
            Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-11-28 15:54 -0500
              Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-11-28 18:51 -0800
                Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-11-28 13:54 -0800
                Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 14:57 -0700
                Re: Why wouldn't entropy apply to a hot star in a cold vacuum ? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-28 20:26 -0600
      Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-11-29 06:45 +0000
        Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-11-29 05:17 -0800
        Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-11-29 09:43 +0000
          Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:49 -0500
            Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 09:08 -0700
              Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-11-29 17:40 +0000
              Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-29 16:15 -0600
          Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 09:08 -0700
            Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-29 16:17 -0600
              Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-11-29 17:22 -0500
              Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-11-30 07:46 +0000
                Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-30 00:55 -0700
                Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-11-30 09:49 +0000
                Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-30 08:50 -0700
                Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-30 09:59 -0600
        Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 05:49 -0500
          Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-11-29 20:08 +0000
            Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 13:19 -0700
          Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 12:09 -0800
            Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 12:48 -0800
            Re: Try again, you're off by 120 orders of magnitude. Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-29 18:48 -0700

csiph-web