Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #590304 > unrolled thread

Re: QM and GR.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#590304 — Re: QM and GR.

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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#590626

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-4, 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.

but that is the direction modern science is going. It does work like that.
Except I would not saw wrong just one is better than another. Like and
electric screwdriver is better than a manual one (in most cases!)


Modern theories present a set of assumptions.
From the assumptions are calculated results
which are compared to experiments.
when the calculated and measured results match
the theory is considered correct.

The advancements have been to make theories that
have fewer assumptions, but match experimental
results in more areas.

Example 1:
Part of this is driven by Occam's razor:
Two distinct theories predicting the same results,
then we keep the one with fewer assumptions.

Example 2:
Two distinct theories with the same number of assumptions,
which match results in several areas but one also
matches results of experiments in additional areas.
Pick the second one as better.


Example 3
Two distinct theories with the same number of assumptions,
but one that works better (closer match to experiments)
is the right choice.
 This is the Einstein/Newton case. Newton and Einstein both give the same results for interactions at "low" speeds. Relativity calculations match much closer to measurements for interactions at or near the speed of light.


HTH,
  ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590644

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.

Most of the time, though, that's not the situation we have. General 
relativity has little to say about the microscopic world, and quantum 
mechanics has little to say about the macroscopic world. But little is 
not nothing, and one can imagine circumstances in which both these 
theories have something to say, but what they say is different. The 
problem them is to determine what they should say (by experiment), and 
then find a way of modifying one or (more likely) both theories so that 
they say that thing. Once that's done such that both theories always say 
the same thing, there's an expectation that we'll find that they're 
mathematically equivalent - that is, that there's a single theory.

Though it seems inevitable that eventually the required experiments 
cannot be done because the conditions for them are unobtainable. So 
rather than having a single theory of everything, we'll probably end up 
with multiple theories of everything that make different predictions, 
but only for conditions we can neither create, nor find in the 
observable universe. At that point, I suppose science becomes philosophy.

Sylvia.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590701

On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 7:21:20 PM UTC-7, 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.
> 
> Most of the time, though, that's not the situation we have. General 
> relativity has little to say about the microscopic world, and quantum 
> mechanics has little to say about the macroscopic world. But little is 
> not nothing, and one can imagine circumstances in which both these 
> theories have something to say, but what they say is different. The 
> problem them is to determine what they should say (by experiment), and 
> then find a way of modifying one or (more likely) both theories so that 
> they say that thing. Once that's done such that both theories always say 
> the same thing, there's an expectation that we'll find that they're 
> mathematically equivalent - that is, that there's a single theory.
> 
> Though it seems inevitable that eventually the required experiments 
> cannot be done because the conditions for them are unobtainable. So 
> rather than having a single theory of everything, we'll probably end up 
> with multiple theories of everything that make different predictions, 
> but only for conditions we can neither create, nor find in the 
> observable universe. At that point, I suppose science becomes philosophy.
> 
> Sylvia.
> 
> Sylvia.

Else If a theories are good they tie ineo each other.TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590772

On 26/07/2016 4:06 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:

>
> Else If a theories are good they tie ineo each other.TreBert
>

That's gibberish.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590933

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 8:00:21 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 26/07/2016 4:06 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> 
> >
> > Else If a theories are good they tie ineo each other.TreBert
> >
> 
> That's gibberish.
> 
> Sylvia.

Not gibberish at all.Its reality. Think about  it and it fits. TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590980

<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Cretin Glazier wrote:
>
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> Glazier what you write is gibberish.
>> Sylvia.
> 
Cretin Glazier wrote:
> Not gibberish at all.Its reality. Think about  it and it fits
because the fit can be seen when...
>
<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Glazier whose g=emc^2 is
short for "Glazier Exhibits Micro Cephalic Cretinism", (Zika
& or by his genetic ashkeNazi marker) defines Bert, reber
Trebert, or Treb the loud mouth, the Jewish Jailbird, the
Hatemonger, Liar, schizoid mental cripple, Pervert Face-Shitter,
criminal Graveyard vandal, Bigot, Racist, War-monger &
Communist :B::ert Glazier who introduces himself with/as....
>
:B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
:B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how everything works,.."
:B:: "My Grandfathers had tails". -- Trebert
:B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
:B:: "I'm a non-bible(torra) Jew. I'm the only Jew that
:B:: got 2 form letters from two Popes". Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
 >
:B:: "I'll be sitting on Benj's, Saul Levi's & HVAC's face
:B:: to take a shit & say: "Open your mouth wide".
:B:: "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And laugh".
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I'm M&M's Clueless Fuck-faced turd".Bert.
:B:: I'm "Siegman Fraud", "Bert, the Bowel Movement".
:B:: "I gave G=EMC^2 (wrong & stolen) to the world"
:B:: "Israel will drop its first H-bomb 'David' ". TreBert
:B:: __"I'm glad when war breaks out"__ Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
 >
:B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and
:B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them. "....
:B:: cuz "I was mixing sulfur, carbon & iron together
:B:: to make gun powder" ... & "while I was in custody
:B:: of Osceola Sheriff Bob Hansel, for thieving, his
:B:: deputies beat the shit out of me. So I bought a
:B:: 357 magnum for death threats by Sheriff Bob.
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
 >
about which ....
Moderator General "HVAC" <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> aka
"Richard A." aka Harlow Campbell wrote:
>
"Bert, your opinion doesn't count"
"a trained cockroach is smarter than Bert"
"Bert, you are a clueless cocksucker"....
"Bert you are senile, dazed & confused"
"Bert, you are Fucked in the head.
>
"Bert is a racist. (And he's stupid too)"
"TreBert, you are one stupid cocksucker".
"Bert, Seriously. You are the stupidest cocksucking
moron who ever came down the Mass Pike."
"Bert, does your stupidity know no bounds?"
>
"Bert, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human
fucking being". "Bert you are an idiot."
"Bert, are the stupidest cocksucker on the planet."
"Spin THIS, Glazier, you fucking idiot." "Bert get
some spelling lessons, you feeble-minded fuck".
>
"Bert, you should be arrested"
"Bert, I will call the police and tell them that your
van seems to be a center for drug activity in the
Wal-Mart parking lot"... .... .... about which....
 >
Glazier's ex-tutor Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
"Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup."
"Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__."
"Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!."
>
"Glazier, your science is far worse than the man's on the street."
"Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage."
"Glazier, your brain is entangled with a used garbage can."
>
"reber, take your 'you know it all thinking' to your grave" .
"reber, your horseshit gets old. Say hi to Allah for me.:
"reber, you don't believe in science."
>
Aviator Jim Pennino jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
Glazier, you are a spamming piece of shit...
Your Cocaine usage explains a lot of your posts.
You are drunk again. Give up and kill yourself.
 >
Astrophysicist "Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote:
>
GLAZIER YOU ARE A LAMEbrain PIECE OF SHIT!
Saul Levy
>
Rocket Scientist Virdy "Mahipal" <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
I know, you reber are an idiot. Glazier, you are babbling
desperately. Is it sympathy or pity you're grasping for?
Stop it, either way.
 >
benj" Ben Jacoby <nobody@gmail.com> wrote:
>
One only has to read Glazier's posts to see when Bert was lobotomized.
But Herb found poster "Double-A" who likes to be like Glazier,
but "Alkie-Alkie" is another kook who is as dumb as Bert is...
and promote that shitting into a bucket in a car is an achievement
that is a laudable accomplishment... and both being Communists
they demand entitlement to goods and services that were created
by hardworking people while they themselves drink, party and frolic!...
... still waiting "to be loved by all"...
>
hanson wrote:
So Glazier, given your Jewish Superiority complex and
your IQ of 122 and you knowing how how everything works,
... how come ended up shitting into a bucket in a 25 year
old Minnie Mouse van that you use as your residence
on Wal-Mart's Parking Lot? ..... .... What went wrong, Glazier?
 >
 "What are they gonna say when Swine Glazier dies? Are
they gonna say he was a kind man? He was a wise man?
He had plans? He has wisdom? .... BULLSHIT, MAN!"...
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAixFYnDh4> [D]
BULLSHIT,... because Swine Glazier DOES have plans
which Glazier, the Full-Swine, announced and posted at
the ripe age of eighty (80) when Glazier became a criminal
Graveyard Vandal who wrote:
>
(1)
On 25Mar2008 Swine Glazier wrote in:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J
Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh
when it seeps down on your face. -- Bert.
 >
Glazier's geriatric decay worsened, along with Glazier's chronic
alcoholism and Glazier, the Olde Kacker, became a Coprophile
IOW Glazier became a filthy Face Shitter at his age of 86, which
Glazier proudly announced & posted...
 >
(2)
On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, Jew-Swine Glazier
said to "benj" <nobody@gmail.com>: Reality is you always
post under me for you are an ass kisser.
For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser.
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert. ... after
which...
 >
Glazier, the Criminal Graveyard Vandal & Face Shitter got even
worse over the next year and at Glazier's age of 87, Glazier
widened his piggish Face-shitting habit, as seen when Glazier
threatened...
 >
(3)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, as Swine Glazier wrote:
Harlow HVAC, Mr.HVAC@gmail.com, Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nobody@gmail.com>:
"I'll be sitting on your face to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
after...
>
(4)
The Criminal Swine Glazier refused to stop his practices & rejected
to be taken down, because Glazier at his age of 87+, Swine Glazier
labeled himself as "Siegman Fraud" which is synonym with "Bowel-
movement, actually saying that __ "Glazier is a piece of shit"__.
who, to boot, also announced that Glazier is a Transvestite who dons
female dresses and a Sarah Palin mask, saying that he has "nice
legs"...
 >
hanson wrote:
Now Glazier, since you are a curse and an embarrassment, day-in
and day-out, to every Jew everywhere, has it dawned on you
sorry, geriatric Transie-Swine, that as soon as you have been
"put away and under" Google will remove ALL YOUR posts from
the USENET and the only thing that will remain and show your
legacy, is because:
 >
Glazier the Swine fortunately posted:
.... "hanson made me famous"....
 >
hanson wrote
So, Glazier you Swine, you should be grateful to me & not wish
me ill like you did above, in your sick hate mongering, since
it is only because of hanson, that Web searches show for:
>
--- Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin ----            27'833 hits & rising
--- reber g=emc^2 Face-shitter & Vandal ----   27'953 hits & rising
>
which is why  the mental cripple <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier>
badly needs to be administered to with
<http://tinyurl.com/G-EMC2-Recall-Therapy> ...
>
Now Glazier, you filthy Swine, "you will never be loved by all"
but incredibly, Glazier, you have a few groupies who love you,
and haved become, voluntarily,  your personal slaves of you,
Faceshitter Glazier, who demonstrate their worship & their
devotion to their master Glazier, by lying under & literally
shit-eating Glazier's turds:
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
such as:
>
=1=
Sefton "john" <johnsefton288@gmail.com> the delusional
vegetarian loud-mouth from Canuckistan's town of Regina
is under the influence of his Lysergic- and  Solanine
contaminated diet and so Sefton lays himself with gusto
under Face-shitter Glazier's Sphincter and enjoys eating
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
and Sefton is impressed also with the Hate-mongering of
>
=2=
<clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> is Iran's Glazier.
The Freak Muslime Mehram Maleki, HATES Western
culture & the USA, yet Maldrecki lays himself UNDER
the Sphincter of Face shitter Jew Glazier who bragged
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
to have _"PFM"_= "Poop For Maleki", which the gay, Iranian
Muslime, Maldrecki, consumed until he turned black
& posted his <http://tinyurl.com/Maleki-Mehram-Selfie>
>
Then the 88 Year old Glazier announced that "Glazier is a
Transvestite who dons female dresses & a Sarah Palin mask,
saying that he has "nice legs"... which so impressed Maldrecki
that Maleki showed his devotion and solidarity by going LGBT
& had a Sex change operation, whose result she posted in
<http://tinyurl.com/Maleki-the-TG-Girl>.
>
=3=
"AA" <double-a3@hush.com> who is Glazier's "Ass Angel",
aka "Abner Afterduft", the "Alcoholic  Addict" who struts with
his "AmoebA" brain, posted and yearns to be like Glazier, & 
AA doubles as Anon Yidd. Mouse", <nobody@home.invalid> 
who does NOT mind that Full-swine Glazier is a Face shitter 
& a criminal Grave yard vandal, Glazier who never recanted nor 
apologized for the overt threats Glazier made.... ....
>
...aux contraire, "Yidd Mouse", cum "AA", the Kike, comes to 
the defense &  aid of Full Swine Glazier's criminality, & worse, 
the Jewish Pig "Anon Yidd Mouse" cum "AA", curses folks that 
point at Glazier's behavior, which makes Yidd Mouse to be an "AA"
example of the lurid "Closeness" which the eminent Jewish Scholar 
Harold Wallace Rosenthal ||R:|| describes in his epic
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
wherein it says:
||R:|| We Jews have a solidarity & a closeness to
||R:|| fellow Jews like none other in the world.
||R:|| We Jews are always 'as one' when it counts.
>
||R:|| It's no secret that we Jews do not respect
||R:|| you gentiles. All of you are our enemies.
||R:|| Our Jewish beliefs are entirely different from yours.
||R:|| Our Talmud/Nedarim/Kol Nidre = "all vows" allows
||R:|| us Jews to lie, subvert and cheat you, the Goyim
>
=4=
Strangely, the Austrian Hitleryouth Halbmutt Wabnigger,
<hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> sides with Glazier too, but said:
____   "Jews are a residue of failed evolution" _______
>
=5=
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>, the "Rectal Vacuumist (Seattle) is a criminal
Child-support dead-beat who greedily sucks turds out of Glazier's
sphincter, especially when they are Methamphetamine preloaded
as seen when Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>::JR:: wrote:
::JR:: I no longer want sex anymore.  I  masturbate. I've found  that
::JR:: all these erections & masturbations can irratate my prostate.
::JR:: My problem mostly happens a few hours before I want to
::JR:: wake up, so I can't take Sudafed.
::JR:: Ejaculation is a mind-altering drug, no better than heroin
::JR:: or meth.    So I've recently vowed to not masturbate...
::JR:: I use my left hand to smoke, masturbate and to type ...
::JR:: Does that make me smart ? --  I'd rather masturbate.
::JR:: She likes to squirt meth up her rear ( it makes her cum).
::JR:: but pussy is the last thing I want.
::::::: (cuz Relf is apparently interested now, with his "mouth wide
:::::::  open", to let Swine Glazier shit into Relf's "kisser")
::JR:: My dreams, however, have been semi-erotic as of late..."
>
=6=
... and even earlier, ironically, signed up was kike "Bodaisky",
<root@localhost.localdomain> who lied and claimed to be 
"Bo Dai" from China, but was in fact "Fagie Bodaisky", who 
lives off the tips he gets from being a rest-room attendant in 
a NY Bath house for gay Jews.
>
=7=
"Andrew Vecsey" posting as <trudi.schwander@gmail.com>
is another stinky & filthy AshkeNAZI, a twatt to boot, who enjoys
spending her time under Glazier's Sphincter like the ones above.
Like those pigs s/he does NOT mind that Jew Glazier is bragging
to be a Face shitter and a criminal Grave yard vandal, but
s/he objects and groans when that is pointed out & comes
runnning to defend and side with Full-Swine Glazier, just like
seen in =3= & <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
>
>
This bizarre perversion is well documented as seen here in:
<http://tinyurl.com/magnum-opus-the-rectal-jew>
<https://theendofzion.com/the-fecal-fixation-of-the-chosen-ones/>
<https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=jewish+cop

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591200

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#591456

well, it ain't so bad, but
the secondpower of the speed of light,
only needs a simple dimensional analysis
(m^2/s^2

> > address - then you can trivially put them together to form a single
> > theory.
> 
> You may want to rephrase this total nonsense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593771

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web