That's Not An Answer - an Astronomy Net Blackholes Forum Message

Blackholes Forum Message
Forums:	Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem


Home \| Discussion Forums \| Blackholes I \| Post	Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

That's Not An Answer

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on November 28, 2002 16:17:08 UTC

Bruce,

I don't see an answer in your response to this issue which confronts QM and SR. It looks more like sweeping dirt under the carpet and pretending its a clear floor. I don't know what the problem is. I see no reason why special relativity cannot be treated as an approximation (or even a good predictive model) which is why we have inconsistencies between other physical theories. It really is no big deal. Actually, if a future theory awaits us in this century, then physics is going to be much more exciting to see new physics.

Wr, Harv

Follow Ups:

The answer was find... - bruce - November 28, 2002 - 21:04 UTC
- We don't need to treat SR as an approximation - harvey1 - November 29, 2002 - 05:41 UTC
  - Correction - harvey1 - November 29, 2002 - 05:42 UTC

Additional Information

About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy

Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins