Ok, cool. That is where we differ. On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, isotropic. > > > 2014-04-29 18:44 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart > <cheme...@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cheme...@gmail.com');> > >: > >> Isotropic? >> >> >> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha >> <danieldi...@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','danieldi...@gmail.com');>> >> wrote: >> >>> Vacuum? What kind of vacuum? If you are talking about field theory, yes, >>> sure, but that is "potential" energy. It can be set to 0. But, there is the >>> vacuum for GR, the lambda. Which is small... really small... >>> >>> >>> 2014-04-29 18:38 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> Do you think we have vacuum in our atmosphere ? >>>> >>>> If yes, do think it is smooth and isotopic ? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ok, I misinterpreted you, I thought you said he thought it was good >>>>> enough >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I read that, but I don't agree with him. It's not convincing >>>>>> because he is used to a great precision, but I, that I am not used to >>>>>> that, >>>>>> think it is good enough. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>>>>> danieldi...@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>> danieldi...@gmail.com >>> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','danieldi...@gmail.com');> >
