Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 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?

No. We'd have to come up with a unified theory that covers both. Just like 
we did when we measured "sometimes waves, sometimes particles".

> "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.

Yeah, OK. I see what you're getting at.

> 	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?

If the new theory actually does explain *most* phenomena but maybe not all, 
I don't think it gets rejected out of hand.  I was considering primarily 
what you'd call the "crackpot" theories. (I haven't watched a lot of 
Joseph's videos, but they don't seem scholarly to me. :-)

But yes, now I understand what you meant when you said "a philosophy you 
never understood", and I see you're probably seeing reasonable theories 
rejected more often than I do (since I'm no longer in the 
theory-investigation business).

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
   unable to read this, even at arm's length."

Post a reply to this message