[1] (2009) Does not disprove hydrodynamic SQS theories of quantum gravity.
A table of predictive error per experiment,{parameters},model might help us understand.
SQS purports to describe black hole internal topology where others do not. GR does not describe the internal topology of merging black hole vortices. Various theories of Quantum Gravity (QG) attempt to reconcile Dirac's pre-"Dirac sea" antimatter claims.
A unified model must: differ from classical mechanics where observational results don't match classical predictions, describe superfluid 3Helium in a beaker, describe gravity in Bose-Einstein condensate superfluids , describe conductivity in superconductors and dielectrics, not introduce unoobserved "annihilation", explain how helicopters have lift, describe quantum locking, describe paths through fluids and gravity, predict n-body gravity experiments on earth in fluids with Bernoulli's and in space, [...]
What else must a unified model of gravity and other forces predict with low error?
Why do I like Fedi's (2015/2016)? IDK. Maybe it's the abstract, maybe it's that nothing else even tries to do fluids and Bernoulli's. N-body gravity solutions with fluid vortices should predict all existing numerical n-body outcomes?
That so many things in space look fluidic - how many spiral arms are there on a nebula, all existing visual representations of black holes look like fluids, merging neutron stars look like emergent patterns from curl, too
Somehow I doubt anyone has even yet left an evolutionary algorithm online even all night to mutate and crossover the expression tree(s) to minimize predictive error according to existing experimental observations
A table of predictive error per experiment,{parameters},model might help us understand.
SQS purports to describe black hole internal topology where others do not. GR does not describe the internal topology of merging black hole vortices. Various theories of Quantum Gravity (QG) attempt to reconcile Dirac's pre-"Dirac sea" antimatter claims.
A unified model must: differ from classical mechanics where observational results don't match classical predictions, describe superfluid 3Helium in a beaker, describe gravity in Bose-Einstein condensate superfluids , describe conductivity in superconductors and dielectrics, not introduce unoobserved "annihilation", explain how helicopters have lift, describe quantum locking, describe paths through fluids and gravity, predict n-body gravity experiments on earth in fluids with Bernoulli's and in space, [...]
What else must a unified model of gravity and other forces predict with low error?
Why do I like Fedi's (2015/2016)? IDK. Maybe it's the abstract, maybe it's that nothing else even tries to do fluids and Bernoulli's. N-body gravity solutions with fluid vortices should predict all existing numerical n-body outcomes?
That so many things in space look fluidic - how many spiral arms are there on a nebula, all existing visual representations of black holes look like fluids, merging neutron stars look like emergent patterns from curl, too
Somehow I doubt anyone has even yet left an evolutionary algorithm online even all night to mutate and crossover the expression tree(s) to minimize predictive error according to existing experimental observations