Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,677:
Line 1,677: + + +
→Unified theory?: in less than 60 seconds I pulled up Wikipedia's immense wisdom (being sarcastic about it, of course) and found that its assertion of progress has a "citation needed" tag, and its paragraph on point admits the following
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:35, January 2, 2022 (EST)
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:35, January 2, 2022 (EST)
::Sam, in less than 60 seconds I pulled up [[Wikipedia]]'s immense wisdom (being sarcastic about it, of course) and found that its assertion of progress towards a unified theory has a "citation needed" tag, and its paragraph on point admits the following:
{{cquote|Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics to form a theory of everything. Trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions leads to fundamental difficulties and the resulting theory is not renormalizable. The incompatibility of the two theories remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory]</ref>}}
::Agree or disagree? Happy New Year's to you, by the way, and as I said before if you find the [[Theory of Relativity]] helpful to you in any way, then I don't want to try to disavow you of that. I think for most people the theory is at best confusing, and at worst a distraction from the [[Bible]] that would help them immensely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:57, January 2, 2022 (EST)
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}