Moderator, “If you can provide cites and back up,”
Do you mean that 121 footnotes leading to some 250 refereed literature cites, arXiv.org cites, and websites aren’t enough? Click on a number in brackets - those are the footnotes. "8^>)
Do you mean that listing 17 fundamental mathematical symmetries within spacetime and the conserved properties thereby evolved through Noether’s theorem wasn’t comprehensive? Physics missed a property to test against the Equivalence Principle. Shouldn’t somebody look?
Do you mean that working for 18 months with the French mathematician who derived quantitative parity (and finding a bug in his software, and a few loopholes to exploit speed of calculation, and creating 14 examples of perfect divergent molecules) leaves some doubt as to the relevance of the measure?
Do you mean that working with an x-ray crystallogprapher who explicity hand-built all 65 chiral spacegroups on a lark and investigated whether they remain volumetrically chiral when the unit cell contents are achiral points isn’t sufficiently rigorous?
Do you mean that getting NASA’s senior big honcho on epheremides to do a little recreational calculation isn’t good enough to calculate solar acceleration at Earth’s orbit?
Do you mean that proposing a benchtop experiment to challenge physics at the Planck level is somehow insufficiently interesting? I propose doing it all in existing academic apparatus, you know. Gotta watch that budget - and no Podkletnov excuses.
If you espied a technical error, TELL ME! You will have beaten out a few dozen folks who do this sort of thing for a living. I’m submitting a four-page paper to “Physical Review Letters” embodying the net content of the site. I thought you folks might be interested in the big picture. It may or may not work, but it is fiendishly clever in knocking away the foundation from all physics while contradicting no existing observation.
Parity explorations have turned physics on its ear before,
and I didn’t even begin to touch the really weird stuff,
“If it is not forbidden then it is allowed.”
Somebody should look - or at least tell me why they shouldn’t.
(Do something naughty to physics)