Jump to content
Science Forums

Supersymmetry from the quarks to the cosmos


Recommended Posts

If you adopt Newtonian gravitation then you are terrifically wrong,

 

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf

Nature 425 374 (2003)

http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf

http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm

http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html

http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html

http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm

http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1

http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

 

If my all my hypotheses die, there are three possible reasons:

 

1) Experiments forbid all the things each subhypothesis in my idea requires.

 

2) Experiments require all the things each subhypothesis in my idea forbids.

 

3) A combination of one and two among all the relevant subhypotheses.

 

If none of these conditions are met, then it is possible for the hypotheses I presented (which are more like a hodge podge of loosely connected ideas) to mutate into something similar. The gravity section is naturally the most speculative part of my idea, and if I wanted to, I could discard that section with ease without putting a burden on the other sections. Only when I find a better alternative will I replace that section (I've done this at least once already), and it's the part I'm least satisfied with (naturally).

Link to post
Share on other sites
If my all my hypotheses die, there are three possible reasons:

 

1) Experiments forbid all the things each subhypothesis in my idea requires.

A single falsification kills all contingent conclusions past that point. Since your founding hypotheses are falsified, nothing remains. Example: Euclid Fifth Postulate is defective. Geometry not dependent upon it remains OK. The rest must yield to elliptic and hyperbolic geometries, then all to Thurston's eight primary geometries of 3-space. Euclid is OK on a zero-curvature plane. Euclid fails on the curved surface of the Earth. The Shroud of Turin is a trivial fraud because Euclid's Fifth Postulate can real world fail.

 

If you want to create a theory of physics you must start at the bottom: Are time and space homogeneous and isotropic? Then Noether's theorems for conserved observables - or not. Does your theory include or approximate Planck's constant (quantum mechanics), lightspeed (Special Relativity), and Newton's G (General Relativity)? What symmetry group do you embrace? Lorentz symmetry, Poincaré symmetry, diffeomorphism...?

2) Experiments require all the things each subhypothesis in my idea forbids.

If you contradict empirical reality you are wrong. Newton was wrong. Euclid was incomplete. String theory might be correct, but it has no testable predictions and is therefore dead in the water to date despite its duals (mathematical duals).

3) A combination of one and two among all the relevant subhypotheses. If none of these conditions are met, then it is possible for the hypotheses I presented (which are more like a hodge podge of loosely connected ideas) to mutate into something similar.

Nothing "mutates." You have it or you do not have it. Newton's predictions for the precession of Mercury's perihelion and the deviation of light by gravitation were observationally incorrect. Newtonian falling light is off by a factor of two vs. observation! General Relativity nailed both - but General Relativity assumes h=0 (as does Newton), and it isn't.

 

The gravity section is naturally the most speculative part of my idea, and if I wanted to, I could discard that section with ease without putting a burden on the other sections. Only when I find a better alternative will I replace that section (I've done this at least once already), and it's the part I'm least satisfied with (naturally).

No theory of gravitation works as well as General Relativity,

 

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b25

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039

http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

 

and General Relativity must be wrong for denying quantum field theory (and quantum field theory wrong for denying gravitation). Teleparallel gravitation has every one of General Relativity's exact predictions, but their maths are mutually exclusive. Only one can be correct based upon whether opposite parity mass distributions vacuum free fall identically. Nobody will do the experiments to find out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...