If you look at the Lunsford unification of GR and EM, it disproves the cosmological constant. If you look at the mechanism of gravitation by which the outward force of the big bang causes an equal inward force which produces the compression of masses (GR contraction term) and gravity (Feynman-Lesage shielding geometry for the gauge boson radiation push), you see the result predicts no cosmological constant (like Lunsford), and a true density around us which is lower than the ‘critical density’ by the factor (e^3)/2 = 10.04.

Gliding would have had me better understanding the easiest rote in a Langrangian sense about “satellites as bees,” once the easiet path is known. So maybe gliding, in that sense?:)

But more then that, developing such features to the dynamical nature of such rotations( the second part of my posting ) in that cosmological sense? As a sphere?

Are there no isomorphic relation to this(circle valuations), in a cosmological sense, at the quantum level? Is this not the problem with assumptions about the background versus the non background?

The assumption is that “energy” had to always exist, and the landscape, seen from that perspective, as we develope that gravitational sense?

Sorry, it ain’t easy, and sorry for any mistakes.

If you want to read a great book on bumblebees, Bernd Heinrich’s “Bumblebee Economics” is a classic. Bumblebees live at the edge from an energy point of view and this book is about their bioenergetics. It has recently been re-released with a new introduction by the author about which see here ( ).

Thanks for the post and also the comments.

Then again, “bees can’t fly” was never really a prediction either.

Actually, I’m not sure that it’s more obvious that bees can fly than that the cosmological constant is not at the Planck scale. That prediction is still worse.

I’m sorry. This bugs me. The cosmological constant is not “predicted” to be Planck scale, simply because, in a QFT context, it is not predicted at all. It is a renormalized coupling and can have any value whatsoever.

What is true is that, in order to achieve the observed value at low energies, the bare value (at the cutoff scale, which we might take to be the Planck scale) must be fine-tuned to enormous accuracy.

But that’s not the same thing at all as saying that the value of the cosmological constant is predicted, and that the prediction comes out wrong.

I know the professionals, like Sean, understand this, and it’s OK to use the shorthand locution when talking among ourselves. But, when talking to the general public, as you attempt to do here, you should be more careful to distinguish what is, and is not “predicted”.

So I have in essence percieved the “Bee HIve Mentality of string theory” as a underlying causation, that if held too, becomes, “how little we really know.“