Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 03:10:41 +0000
Subject: Re: SpaceTime
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <6249F967.3B4A@ix.netcom.com> <lbqi8uF7r8kU3@mid.individual.net>
 <SZCcnfMeCMTTzMT7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <46358f5157687acd0539d6848f6b626c@www.novabbs.com>
 <lc2g63FdkjpU3@mid.individual.net>
 <a36c62011f40ea648ffe8d884ce5eebd@www.novabbs.com>
 <17d537553944a2de$5$422432$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com>
 <51a50934574cfb09144c2a6c26eceb74@www.novabbs.com>
 <udidndQOHOqpNcH7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <5dba54ad373d3e9a50644c063f71a5b1@www.novabbs.com>
 <LkiaDz8Otko5Q-u5wJLOx98bx6k@jntp>
 <c1c87b515e8d35ea861b9ce9c93806a4@www.novabbs.com>
 <QuGdnWLN2ex2k8D7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <5a03b3defc4af4304b84f5d6059306b0@www.novabbs.com>
 <g5CcnfmPtY1ytsD7nZ2dnZfqn_YAAAAA@giganews.com>
 <_s2dnea9UdCjrsD7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:10:43 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <_s2dnea9UdCjrsD7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <_s2dneG9UdCsqcD7nZ2dnZfqnPjqyJ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 109
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-e2WdzwuyF2Wyym2sPsTQTfcxJqGUVTcpS2A9Fjes+v4aMRfH1cAfqABy5AgzZBkjNxPQrsryN84vBJt!bvBHQ30gpNVJ9t3oLmpU/j4yqqhtX6xZGlnsxnmxZ7/clx3CM7DA5z1kPmKYXDmpbMnS7Rt9iPk=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5648

On 06/02/2024 08:06 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 06/02/2024 07:35 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 06/02/2024 07:12 PM, gharnagel wrote:
>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 06/02/2024 04:22 PM, gharnagel wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > More invalid analogies.
>>>
>>>> Yeah, if you assume causality, then tachyons can't be fantastical,
>>>> they're only the result of something that is or did.
>>>>
>>>> The neutrino physics are mostly about supersymmetry.
>>>
>>> Nope.  Neutrinos are firmly ensconced in the Standard model of
>>> particle physics, while supersymmetric particles are not.
>>>
>>>> If you assume lack of causality it's pretty easy to arrive at
>>>> itself.
>>>
>>> That's the problem with the conventional view of FTL phenomena.
>>> It comes from the Lorentz transform:
>>>
>>> (1) dx' = gamma(dx - v dt)
>>> (2) dt' = gamma(dt - v dx/c^2)
>>>
>>>  From that comes
>>>
>>> dx'/dt' = u' = (dx - v dt)/(dt - v dx/c^2)
>>>
>>> u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
>>>
>>> u' becomes infinite when u = c^2/v, and infinity is a red flag
>>> in physics.  It means that the math becomes useless at and beyond
>>> that point.  Physicists, who should know better, have persisted
>>> into that real and come up with all kinds of frivolous assertions
>>> like time going backwards, negative energy, causality violation
>>> and a "reinterpretation principle."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mathematics really owes physics more and better
>> mathematics of the super-classical and infinitary
>> and the law(s) of large numbers, mathematical
>> physics is entirely subject to mathematical formalism
>> and the ingenuity of mathematical forms.
>>
>> Relativity is rather simplified with GR being primary
>> and SR being local, and what remains is mass/energy
>> equivalence and a cosmological constant reflecting
>> time.
>>
>> Then, the linear mass/energy equivalence
>> is quite Galilean, while the rotational is
>> special in both the spatial and spacial,
>> and there's lots of data from both
>> linear particle accelerators, and, cyclotrons.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> About supersymmetry, there's strong and weak I suppose,
> about that the "weak" sort is usual flux while the "strong"
> sort I suppose is only at "Tevatron energy levels", and sort
> of contrived, where of course Higgs field is not even really
> a classical field, and, Higgs Bosons if "Standard" are also
> "Not Standard", that the Higgs Bosons have giant divots,
> then neutrinos and for neutrino physics as a complement
> to electron physics, have that those really reflect as
> partner in the symmetric then super-symmetric as well.
>
> I.e. this sort of neutrino supersymmetry or "low-energy"
> is out of regular potentials, not "superpotentials".
>
> Well. shoot, "low-energy supersymmetry" is already
> called for "Tera-electronvolt" i.e. "the slightly weaker
> cousin of extra-strong supersymmetry", where what
> I'm talking about then I guess is "very-low" or even
> "slightly negative" energy supersymmetry.
>
>
> "Little-Higgs", say, ... like "in this case while it's a
> thing the number would be negative like the flux
> was going the opposite direction", ....
>
> It's sort of like solar neutrinos and, you know,
> those flowing _in_.
>
> Which might help explain the usual seasonal models, ....
>
> Yeah I'm interested in the "near-zero energy supersymmetry"
> not the "freakishly outlandish well at least let's get a grant
> to build a collider and talk about our g-2 lognormal shift
> so it looks like we're writing physics", bit.
>
> Heisenberg, now with more certainty,
> Hubble, now with less inflation,
> Higgs, much, much diminished.
>
>

(I.e., "supersymmetry", not "supersymmetry-breaking".)