Three theories.

[Starbles@Earthlink.net]

I'm currently wondering about these three Theories Of Everything.

http://www.superstringtheory.com/ (Quantity G is added in an ad hoc
way.) (Mainstream, Untestable.)

http://www.qgravity.org/ (Quantity c is added in an ad hoc way.)
(Somewhat Popular, Somewhat Testable.)

http://www.aias.us/ (Quantity h is added in an ad hoc way.)
(Practically Crackpot, Numerous Predictions)

What I am observing is that the less mainstream it is, the more
numerous the predictions, and vice versa. What I also notice is that
none of them have all three fundamental variables (G, c, and h) as
necessarily fundamental. Is there any reason to explain these trends?

(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)

[Blackbird]

Starbles@Earthlink.net wrote:
> I'm currently wondering about these three Theories Of Everything.
>
> http://www.superstringtheory.com/ (Quantity G is added in an ad hoc
> way.) (Mainstream, Untestable.)
>
> http://www.qgravity.org/ (Quantity c is added in an ad hoc way.)
> (Somewhat Popular, Somewhat Testable.)
>
> http://www.aias.us/ (Quantity h is added in an ad hoc way.)
> (Practically Crackpot, Numerous Predictions)
>
> What I am observing is that the less mainstream it is, the more
> numerous the predictions, and vice versa. What I also notice is that
> none of them have all three fundamental variables (G, c, and h) as
> necessarily fundamental. Is there any reason to explain these trends?

Well, the first trend is easily explainable. If a theory has numerous
predictions, the easier it will be to falsify the theory, so the odds of the
theory having a short half-time is obviously larger. And by the way, the
ECE theory (http://www.aias.us/ ) is not just *practically* crackpot.
Crackpot, period.

Blackbird

[Thomas Cuny]

Starbles@Earthlink.net wrote:
> I'm currently wondering about these three Theories Of Everything.
>
> http://www.superstringtheory.com/ (Quantity G is added in an ad hoc
> way.) (Mainstream, Untestable.)
>
> http://www.qgravity.org/ (Quantity c is added in an ad hoc way.)
> (Somewhat Popular, Somewhat Testable.)
>
> http://www.aias.us/ (Quantity h is added in an ad hoc way.)
> (Practically Crackpot, Numerous Predictions)
>
> What I am observing is that the less mainstream it is, the more
> numerous the predictions, and vice versa. What I also notice is that
> none of them have all three fundamental variables (G, c, and h) as
> necessarily fundamental. Is there any reason to explain these trends?
>
> (...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
You left out this TOE, "Internal Symmetry from Division Algebras in
Pure Spinor
Geometry" hep-th/0311045.
This TOE is simple,relational and background free.

[Cl.Massé]

<Starbles@Earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
1145829272.326420.28280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.c om

> I'm currently wondering about these three Theories Of Everything.
>
> http://www.superstringtheory.com/ (Quantity G is added in an ad hoc
> way.) (Mainstream, Untestable.)
>
> http://www.qgravity.org/ (Quantity c is added in an ad hoc way.)
> (Somewhat Popular, Somewhat Testable.)
>
> http://www.aias.us/ (Quantity h is added in an ad hoc way.)
> (Practically Crackpot, Numerous Predictions)
>
> What I am observing is that the less mainstream it is, the more
> numerous the predictions, and vice versa. What I also notice is that
> none of them have all three fundamental variables (G, c, and h) as
> necessarily fundamental. Is there any reason to explain these trends?

None is a theory of Everything, since each is not the theory of at least one
fundamental constant. That's not astonishing since we haven't yet a theory
of something. Neither quantum mechanics nor the standard model is.

A theory can be mainstream only if it isn't rapidly disproved, as has been
the SU(5) grand unification, so an untestable theory is more likely to
become mainstream. A crackpot theory is anyway never tested, and thus may
predict all its heart's content. Physics is just in between.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.