Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
Yes but as you know Dave what is required is a theory that not only works but is better than the theory being replaced and preferably a theory that builds upon the body of work to date.
GR was a better theory but it didn't, on my understanding throw out Newton or Galileo equivalence.
Peter may I also ask a question?
Is there something that specifically you see as wrong and which you have the correct answer.
I am curious as to why you are so passionate in your position.
|
You know, I'd even be prepared to take seriously a theory that was only just as good as QM.
The fact is that the crowd who hate the 'indeterminacy' of QM have never been able to put up a coherent alternative that corresponds to how the universe seems to work.
Their point always seems to wind up looking like a simple insistence that the universe shouldn't work that way because they don't like it.