The path integral when it evaluates to only a tiny bit different than 1,
and this gyroscopic constant that evaluates to only a tiny bit different than 2,
one wonders how and why they're really any different, and whether the latest
muon physics experiment really is because the path integral isn't figured out.

There are some pretty shoddy definitions in some of these articles, for example,
here the "four forces" are strong nuclear, weak, electro, and electro-weak,
when they say "gravity, strong, electro, weak", I'm like "no, gravity is not another
force in the usual models, and here for example it's strong nuclear with fall-gravity".

There are lots of interesting things in muon physics about the weak and electro-weak,
but these "(g-2): 0?" setups seems also don't know "(p-1): 0?".

"MOND: not dark matter" has had a lot of recent articles about it, but,
it also just runs off out all the old data. Big data / old data.

Then a bunch of these recent articles about "non-linear and resonance effects",
it's like "quantum new this, quantum new that", and it's like, no, Bob, those
are non-linear and resonance effects and in molecular chemistry and in
the superfluid and superconductive, and they're pretty cool engineering efforts
in sectors, but they're not really getting to anything fundamentally "new", only,
more evidence that there's more fundamentally "old".

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 10:41:53 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> The path integral when it evaluates to only a tiny bit different than 1,
> and this gyroscopic constant that evaluates to only a tiny bit different than 2,
> one wonders how and why they're really any different, and whether the latest
> muon physics experiment really is because the path integral isn't figured out.
>
>
> There are some pretty shoddy definitions in some of these articles, for example,
> here the "four forces" are strong nuclear, weak, electro, and electro-weak,
> when they say "gravity, strong, electro, weak", I'm like "no, gravity is not another
> force in the usual models, and here for example it's strong nuclear with fall-gravity".
>
>
> There are lots of interesting things in muon physics about the weak and electro-weak,
> but these "(g-2): 0?" setups seems also don't know "(p-1): 0?".
>
>
>
> "MOND: not dark matter" has had a lot of recent articles about it, but,
> it also just runs off out all the old data. Big data / old data.
>
>
> Then a bunch of these recent articles about "non-linear and resonance effects",
> it's like "quantum new this, quantum new that", and it's like, no, Bob, those
> are non-linear and resonance effects and in molecular chemistry and in
> the superfluid and superconductive, and they're pretty cool engineering efforts
> in sectors, but they're not really getting to anything fundamentally "new", only,
> more evidence that there's more fundamentally "old".

Yeah, I know. "We can't be expected to learn about doubling-spaces and
continuum mechanics and super-classical, we just put our data in this
linear fitter and via principal component analysis it gives us our variables
and formula".

And it's like "show your work" and it's like "we don't have to put Mathematica
or Maple V or Macsyma in the citations because that's work product" and it's
like "Chat you".

Heh, honesty and transparency in many modern scientific papers:
"here's our database and here's our numerical methods".

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:33:46 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 10:41:53 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > The path integral when it evaluates to only a tiny bit different than 1,
> > and this gyroscopic constant that evaluates to only a tiny bit different than 2,
> > one wonders how and why they're really any different, and whether the latest
> > muon physics experiment really is because the path integral isn't figured out.
> >
> >
> > There are some pretty shoddy definitions in some of these articles, for example,
> > here the "four forces" are strong nuclear, weak, electro, and electro-weak,
> > when they say "gravity, strong, electro, weak", I'm like "no, gravity is not another
> > force in the usual models, and here for example it's strong nuclear with fall-gravity".
> >
> >
> > There are lots of interesting things in muon physics about the weak and electro-weak,
> > but these "(g-2): 0?" setups seems also don't know "(p-1): 0?".
> >
> >
> >
> > "MOND: not dark matter" has had a lot of recent articles about it, but,
> > it also just runs off out all the old data. Big data / old data.
> >
> >
> > Then a bunch of these recent articles about "non-linear and resonance effects",
> > it's like "quantum new this, quantum new that", and it's like, no, Bob, those
> > are non-linear and resonance effects and in molecular chemistry and in
> > the superfluid and superconductive, and they're pretty cool engineering efforts
> > in sectors, but they're not really getting to anything fundamentally "new", only,
> > more evidence that there's more fundamentally "old".
> Yeah, I know. "We can't be expected to learn about doubling-spaces and
> continuum mechanics and super-classical, we just put our data in this
> linear fitter and via principal component analysis it gives us our variables
> and formula".
>
> And it's like "show your work" and it's like "we don't have to put Mathematica
> or Maple V or Macsyma in the citations because that's work product" and it's
> like "Chat you".
>
>
> Heh, honesty and transparency in many modern scientific papers:
> "here's our database and here's our numerical methods".

Yeah, saying "the numbers are off, we found a new force!" is pretty wrong-ish, in
the older school they would say "these are exotic particles" but the new kids with "we're
standard" are sort of ignorant of lots what came before except their received wisdom
which they never questioned to ask how it was arrived at the neat package the
"Standard Model". And they don't have the electroweak force at all, and want to
add new fundamental forces when the goal is less, ....

It's kind of like "dark matter" which after "superstring theory" started getting quite
involved and all Road to Reality and and Rindler and sich, was "dark matter is simple
and it fits in two paragraphs", well now it's kind of just coming out as wrong.

So, they'd be better off figuring out how "Higgs Boson is already outside standard
as much as it's the 'last standard'", but it must seem nice if you can get a Ph.D. with
about 3/4 of a page of three trigonometric identifies, a few complex conventions
after Gauss and Planck, a bit of algebra, all what can be found on the Internet in five minutes.

Must be nice, ..., it's not very scientific though nor fundamental.

Of course lots of science in the Particle Zoo is just like
"leave it alone, if they don't know they don't need to know".

Heh, and they don't know the red-shift catalog has various conventions
of reserved ranges for blue-shift, .... "Isn't it just like pH?" Yeah, not really,
it's more like particular conventions leave out the ceiling or floor or both
and reserve in those the inverses.

On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:25:29 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:33:46 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 10:41:53 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > The path integral when it evaluates to only a tiny bit different than 1,
> > > and this gyroscopic constant that evaluates to only a tiny bit different than 2,
> > > one wonders how and why they're really any different, and whether the latest
> > > muon physics experiment really is because the path integral isn't figured out.
> > >
> > >
> > > There are some pretty shoddy definitions in some of these articles, for example,
> > > here the "four forces" are strong nuclear, weak, electro, and electro-weak,
> > > when they say "gravity, strong, electro, weak", I'm like "no, gravity is not another
> > > force in the usual models, and here for example it's strong nuclear with fall-gravity".
> > >
> > >
> > > There are lots of interesting things in muon physics about the weak and electro-weak,
> > > but these "(g-2): 0?" setups seems also don't know "(p-1): 0?".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "MOND: not dark matter" has had a lot of recent articles about it, but,
> > > it also just runs off out all the old data. Big data / old data.
> > >
> > >
> > > Then a bunch of these recent articles about "non-linear and resonance effects",
> > > it's like "quantum new this, quantum new that", and it's like, no, Bob, those
> > > are non-linear and resonance effects and in molecular chemistry and in
> > > the superfluid and superconductive, and they're pretty cool engineering efforts
> > > in sectors, but they're not really getting to anything fundamentally "new", only,
> > > more evidence that there's more fundamentally "old".
> > Yeah, I know. "We can't be expected to learn about doubling-spaces and
> > continuum mechanics and super-classical, we just put our data in this
> > linear fitter and via principal component analysis it gives us our variables
> > and formula".
> >
> > And it's like "show your work" and it's like "we don't have to put Mathematica
> > or Maple V or Macsyma in the citations because that's work product" and it's
> > like "Chat you".
> >
> >
> > Heh, honesty and transparency in many modern scientific papers:
> > "here's our database and here's our numerical methods".
> Yeah, saying "the numbers are off, we found a new force!" is pretty wrong-ish, in
> the older school they would say "these are exotic particles" but the new kids with "we're
> standard" are sort of ignorant of lots what came before except their received wisdom
> which they never questioned to ask how it was arrived at the neat package the
> "Standard Model". And they don't have the electroweak force at all, and want to
> add new fundamental forces when the goal is less, ....
>
> It's kind of like "dark matter" which after "superstring theory" started getting quite
> involved and all Road to Reality and and Rindler and sich, was "dark matter is simple
> and it fits in two paragraphs", well now it's kind of just coming out as wrong.
>
> So, they'd be better off figuring out how "Higgs Boson is already outside standard
> as much as it's the 'last standard'", but it must seem nice if you can get a Ph.D. with
> about 3/4 of a page of three trigonometric identifies, a few complex conventions
> after Gauss and Planck, a bit of algebra, all what can be found on the Internet in five minutes.
>
> Must be nice, ..., it's not very scientific though nor fundamental.
>
> Of course lots of science in the Particle Zoo is just like
> "leave it alone, if they don't know they don't need to know".
>
> Heh, and they don't know the red-shift catalog has various conventions
> of reserved ranges for blue-shift, .... "Isn't it just like pH?" Yeah, not really,
> it's more like particular conventions leave out the ceiling or floor or both
> and reserve in those the inverses.

They only had space in the database for "unsigned red-shift", that's where they put it.

On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:35:47 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:25:29 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:33:46 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 10:41:53 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > The path integral when it evaluates to only a tiny bit different than 1,
> > > > and this gyroscopic constant that evaluates to only a tiny bit different than 2,
> > > > one wonders how and why they're really any different, and whether the latest
> > > > muon physics experiment really is because the path integral isn't figured out.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are some pretty shoddy definitions in some of these articles, for example,
> > > > here the "four forces" are strong nuclear, weak, electro, and electro-weak,
> > > > when they say "gravity, strong, electro, weak", I'm like "no, gravity is not another
> > > > force in the usual models, and here for example it's strong nuclear with fall-gravity".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are lots of interesting things in muon physics about the weak and electro-weak,
> > > > but these "(g-2): 0?" setups seems also don't know "(p-1): 0?".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "MOND: not dark matter" has had a lot of recent articles about it, but,
> > > > it also just runs off out all the old data. Big data / old data.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Then a bunch of these recent articles about "non-linear and resonance effects",
> > > > it's like "quantum new this, quantum new that", and it's like, no, Bob, those
> > > > are non-linear and resonance effects and in molecular chemistry and in
> > > > the superfluid and superconductive, and they're pretty cool engineering efforts
> > > > in sectors, but they're not really getting to anything fundamentally "new", only,
> > > > more evidence that there's more fundamentally "old".
> > > Yeah, I know. "We can't be expected to learn about doubling-spaces and
> > > continuum mechanics and super-classical, we just put our data in this
> > > linear fitter and via principal component analysis it gives us our variables
> > > and formula".
> > >
> > > And it's like "show your work" and it's like "we don't have to put Mathematica
> > > or Maple V or Macsyma in the citations because that's work product" and it's
> > > like "Chat you".
> > >
> > >
> > > Heh, honesty and transparency in many modern scientific papers:
> > > "here's our database and here's our numerical methods".
> > Yeah, saying "the numbers are off, we found a new force!" is pretty wrong-ish, in
> > the older school they would say "these are exotic particles" but the new kids with "we're
> > standard" are sort of ignorant of lots what came before except their received wisdom
> > which they never questioned to ask how it was arrived at the neat package the
> > "Standard Model". And they don't have the electroweak force at all, and want to
> > add new fundamental forces when the goal is less, ....
> >
> > It's kind of like "dark matter" which after "superstring theory" started getting quite
> > involved and all Road to Reality and and Rindler and sich, was "dark matter is simple
> > and it fits in two paragraphs", well now it's kind of just coming out as wrong.
> >
> > So, they'd be better off figuring out how "Higgs Boson is already outside standard
> > as much as it's the 'last standard'", but it must seem nice if you can get a Ph.D. with
> > about 3/4 of a page of three trigonometric identifies, a few complex conventions
> > after Gauss and Planck, a bit of algebra, all what can be found on the Internet in five minutes.
> >
> > Must be nice, ..., it's not very scientific though nor fundamental.
> >
> > Of course lots of science in the Particle Zoo is just like
> > "leave it alone, if they don't know they don't need to know".
> >
> > Heh, and they don't know the red-shift catalog has various conventions
> > of reserved ranges for blue-shift, .... "Isn't it just like pH?" Yeah, not really,
> > it's more like particular conventions leave out the ceiling or floor or both
> > and reserve in those the inverses.
> They only had space in the database for "unsigned red-shift", that's where they put it.

It's like when SI 2019 went to unitless, "these simplify chip calculations so
if you want more comprehensive systems-of-units concerns then stay
with your MKS or CMS or what you're working with."

It's like "wow we redefined and SR is so simple" and it's like "yeah,
your blinders and training wheels are firmly attached".