Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #590658
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: QM and GR. |
| Date | 2016-07-25 16:45 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dvlqrnFf53gU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <e774f48f-83e5-4a00-bb28-5fe21626b4b3@googlegroups.com> <dvednQ_V3vIC9B_KnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <nm0dtm$5sb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dutv5vFo4jqU1@mid.individual.net> <GJ-dnRUU_7lCew_KnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 23/07/2016 1:39 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 7/16/16 7/16/16 12:31 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> There cannot be two different correct theories, because if they're >> different, >> they'll sometimes give different answers, and at least one would have >> to be wrong. > > Sure there can, as long as they predict the same result(s) for the > experiments. > > Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian mechanics are all quite different > theories, yet they all predict exactly the same result for any > experiment within their domain (which is common to all). I'd tend to regard them as different manifestations of the same underlying theory. > > Closer to this newsgroup, SR and LET are quite different theories, yet > they predict the same results for any experiment within their common > domain. They are mathematically the same. LET is just derived differently, based on the assumption of something that the theory doesn't include, and doesn't describe. Sylvia.
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-22 22:39 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-23 08:14 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:43 -0500
Re: QM and GR. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 13:29 -0700
Re: QM and GR. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 17:24 -0400
Re: QM and GR. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 05:00 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-23 12:33 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-23 22:41 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-24 07:12 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-26 09:21 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-27 07:11 +0200
Re: QM and GR. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 10:11 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 16:45 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 16:46 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:08 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 12:28 -0500
that & this noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:46 -0700
Re: that & this noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 19:21 -0700
Re: QM and GR. wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2016-07-26 12:11 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 12:11 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-29 10:20 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 07:13 -0500
so sad, that M. is known only for his slogan about a mere phase-space noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:03 -0700
lightcone(s brandonahenley9@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 12:18 -0700
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-08-07 15:36 +0000
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 12:31 -0500
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-08 06:57 -0500
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 07:18 +0200
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-08 11:02 -0700
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-08 13:14 -0500
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-08 13:07 -0700
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-08 13:05 -0700
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 22:52 +0200
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:11 -0700
Re: Nature decides _everything_. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 08:42 +0200
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-09 12:09 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 12:54 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-09 13:35 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 13:38 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 23:53 +0200
da tum noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 11:06 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 18:17 -0400
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-09 06:51 -0500
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 17:51 -0400
Re: Nature decides _everything_. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-08-09 14:40 -0700
csiph-web