Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:

Lee Smolin apologizes for wasting tax payer's (Canadian) money on
something that obviously cannot be done, i.e. unification of GR and QM:

GR QM
h=0 h=h
G=G G=0

My my, aren't you the short sighted one? Such a statement hardly
constitutes a definitive proof. Apparently, something has gone right
over your head, namely that unification has h = h and G = G, and that
it would reduce to GR when h approaches 0 and reduce to QM when G
approaches 0. Not thinking about all the possibilities is no excuse.

No, something went over your empty head. QM is inconsistent with G=G
and GR inconsistent with h=h. They are mutuallyn exclusive that is. If
you know anything about set theoretics, what the hell is the union of
two mutually exclusive sets of predictions?


It is not a matter of a wrong assumption. It is a matetr of a totally
wrong approach he took and failed. GR and QM cannot be integrated into
a single theory. That was the only bad assumption he made, i.e. that
they could.

You haven't proven that statement. It's just your own personal
opinion. A lot of people thought unification was silly till the E-Weak
theory and it's subsequent verification came along. Unification has a
long history, from Maxwell's unification of E and B fields, to
Einstein's unification of gravity with the other inertial forces in GR.
That Einstein's attempts to unify gravity and EM fields failed and
string theory also appears to have failed doesn't really mean much.
Most scientific hypotheses die on the vine anyway. Frankly, I think
that the jury is still out on Smolen's loop quantum gravity, since it
hasn't been around as long as string theory. But who knows? Maybe we
do need a new approach.

You like emptry conversation and meaningless statements. Your way.


I am sick and tired of people like you referring to what Einstein said
100 years ago or someone else. If you want to do a historical analysis
of science go to another group. Physics has progreessed dramatically
since Einstein and so his theories, whether right or wrong. Your and
other's continuing reference to what Einstein said is like referencing
Euclid for understanding plane geometry.

That seems to be first thing you've said that I've agreed with for a
long time.

Who gives a dime with what you agree or not. You are an idiot anyway.

Mike

Mike wrote:
Igor wrote:
Mike wrote:

Lee Smolin apologizes for wasting tax payer's (Canadian) money on
something that obviously cannot be done, i.e. unification of GR and QM:

GR QM
h=0 h=h
G=G G=0

My my, aren't you the short sighted one? Such a statement hardly
constitutes a definitive proof. Apparently, something has gone right
over your head, namely that unification has h = h and G = G, and that
it would reduce to GR when h approaches 0 and reduce to QM when G
approaches 0. Not thinking about all the possibilities is no excuse.

No, something went over your empty head. QM is inconsistent with G=G
and GR inconsistent with h=h. They are mutuallyn exclusive that is. If
you know anything about set theoretics, what the hell is the union of
two mutually exclusive sets of predictions?

They're only mutually exclusive in their respective limits. Read what I
wrote again.


It is not a matter of a wrong assumption. It is a matetr of a totally
wrong approach he took and failed. GR and QM cannot be integrated into
a single theory. That was the only bad assumption he made, i.e. that
they could.

You haven't proven that statement. It's just your own personal
opinion. A lot of people thought unification was silly till the E-Weak
theory and it's subsequent verification came along. Unification has a
long history, from Maxwell's unification of E and B fields, to
Einstein's unification of gravity with the other inertial forces in GR.
That Einstein's attempts to unify gravity and EM fields failed and
string theory also appears to have failed doesn't really mean much.
Most scientific hypotheses die on the vine anyway. Frankly, I think
that the jury is still out on Smolen's loop quantum gravity, since it
hasn't been around as long as string theory. But who knows? Maybe we
do need a new approach.

You like emptry conversation and meaningless statements. Your way.

Feel free to refute anything I said. I don't you can. Are there
unified fields in physics already? Yes there are.



I am sick and tired of people like you referring to what Einstein said
100 years ago or someone else. If you want to do a historical analysis
of science go to another group. Physics has progreessed dramatically
since Einstein and so his theories, whether right or wrong. Your and
other's continuing reference to what Einstein said is like referencing
Euclid for understanding plane geometry.

That seems to be first thing you've said that I've agreed with for a
long time.

Who gives a dime with what you agree or not. You are an idiot anyway.

I'm trying to be helpful, but apparently, I'm talking right over your
puny head.