Darren New wrote:
> Yes. But the places where QM contradicts GR is places where you can't
> *measure* GR.  Places where GR contradicts QM is places where you can't
> *measure* QM.

	So, if one day we measure things that confirms what QM predicts, and GR
contradicts, and also make other measurements for other phenomena that
confirm what GR predicts, and QM contradicts, what do you suggest? Drop
QM as it is the newer theory?

"In the wave vs particle stuff, for a while, neither could explain *all*
the phenomena, so people knew they didn't have the right answer. But if
your theory of light as a wave says fluorescence shouldn't happen, it's
not a very good theory."

	You did it again. Yes, neither explained all the phenomena, and neither
was abandoned.

	So unless you're suggesting that current (accepted) physics theories
explains *all* observable phenomena, why reject a new theory that
explains most unexplained phenomena, most currently explained phenomena,
but is wrong on a few things that the current theory is correct on?


-- 
Blessed are the censors, for they shall inhibit the earth.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message