SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,681:
Line 1,681: − + + + + + + + +
→Unified theory?: Long reply.
::and its paragraph on point admits the following:
::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>}}
{{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)
::Agree or disagree?
:::I couldn't agree more. The conflict between relativity (at large scales) and quantum mechanics (at small scales) is well known. And it's not new. It's been around for decades. It's been remarked upon at enormous length all over the world, including here at Conservapedia, such as, ''inter alia'', items 20, 21, and 30 in [[Counterexamples to Relativity|CTR]]. But that's not the topic of your objection. The topic of your objection is about mass and energy, both covered and "unified", albeit in different ways, in both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
::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)
:::Well, Relativity is admittedly confusing for people (the vast majority of people, I dare say) who don't want to study it seriously. As for me, I find biochemistry and macroeconomics to be enormously more confusing. Your experience may be different.
:::I don't find Relativity to be in any way a distraction from the Bible. I refer to my King James fairly frequently. Just the other day I was rereading the part about shepherds abiding in the field. And listening to George Frederic Handel's setting of it.
:::You seem to be the only person I know of who sees a conflict between the Bible and Relativity, with the [https://conservapedia.com/Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity#Action-at-a-distance_according_to_the_Bible instantaneous transmission of information] issue. Please forgive me for being a liberal Christian, but I don't think the Bible was saying that the cure was instantaneous to the nanosecond. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:44, January 2, 2022 (EST)
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}