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 03:06:38 +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>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:06:30 -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: <g5CcnfmPtY1ytsD7nZ2dnZfqn_YAAAAA@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <_s2dnea9UdCjrsD7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 105
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-AUavberjLvXrT3PhQ5yeqDZXD6u9Ah0K9QjEizaSeKOTzJoudyHXqPwqcH2ZUWy/PDdmm+GyUqhXq89!A5gtDH8ng9t/ql+50OWscRB9ltQm7hzXgU+B27RIn3jVpudNNezS86HgDfoSK+LIT8i5QBZEjzk=
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: 5356

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.