>>10127484ooh wow somebody is getting their panties in a bunch.
>with observation as contextlet me give you an example:
>smartguy:>"hey look at that, hot stuff like fire goes up">"hmmm okay, maybe that has to do with buoyancy or something, let me work out a theory that relates heat to buoyancy">brainlet:>"hey look at that, hot stuff like fire goes up">"based on this, I conjecture the existence of phlogiston, the elemental constituent of fire">"it has negative mass, therefore gravity pushes it up">"furthermore i speculate: Air attracts the phlogiston of bodies. When set in motion, phlogiston is the chief active principle in nature of all inanimate bodies. It is the basis of colors.there is a difference between theories motivated by trying to explain real phenomena or make incremental predictions of what could be expected given the theoretical hints, fine, that's one thing, but there's a COMPLETELY SEPARATE thing that says "oh, let me speculate about what happens at energies that won't be measurable for ten thousand years because i like how the equations look, and based on these speculations, make claims like there are many extra dimensions of space time, that we can't see, but they're there :^)"
anyhow you have no argument and you're just butthurt that your precious SUSY isn't where it was supposed to be, according to all the smartypants guys you worship, who turned out to be wrong
