Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #593771
| Path | csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: QM and GR. |
| Date | Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:05:13 +1000 |
| Lines | 28 |
| Message-ID | <e1nbb9FbsftU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <e774f48f-83e5-4a00-bb28-5fe21626b4b3@googlegroups.com> <dvednQ_V3vIC9B_KnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <nm0dtm$5sb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dutv5vFo4jqU1@mid.individual.net> <nmtgg6$jb7$2@gioia.aioe.org> <dvlbcsFbs1pU1@mid.individual.net> <nngdvq$nj8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| X-Trace | individual.net b+7fl9AKoHrVkH2T1p4Tow1qtMtab0zNuO5+908sn4FouDN8X8 |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:NBkBhzodxEyYHEEau4mOdM11qiw= |
| User-Agent | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 |
| In-Reply-To | <nngdvq$nj8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| Xref | csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:390329 sci.physics:593771 |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Show key headers only | View raw
On 30/07/2016 6:23 AM, Tsvetana Kasatkina wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 23/07/2016 2:09 AM, Greg Buttler wrote: >>> 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. >>> >>> I'm not sure it works like that. You may easily have to distinct >>> theories predicting same outcome. However, the discussion is not about >>> it, but combining all existing theories into a single one. There is no >>> need for that. >> >> If you have two separate theories that address disjoint aspects of >> physics - that is, there are no areas of physics that both theories >> address - then you can trivially put them together to form a single >> theory. > > You may want to rephrase this total nonsense. > No, I stand by it in its original form. Perhaps you just don't understand it. Sylvia.
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: QM and GR. Greg Buttler <grgb@novotnysite.org> - 2016-07-22 16:09 +0000
Re: QM and GR. edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 17:19 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 12:21 +1000
Re: QM and GR. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:06 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-26 13:00 +1000
Re: QM and GR. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 09:44 -0700
Re: QM and GR. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-07-27 12:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Tsvetana Kasatkina <tzve@noemail.info> - 2016-07-29 20:23 +0000
Re: QM and GR. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 19:05 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-19 13:05 +1000
csiph-web