Hans-Christian Andersen
hans.andersen at phulse.com
Sun Apr 22 13:10:38 CDT 2012
I guess you could say that, but I'd characterise it more like that Einsteins theories were more of a refinement of Netwons, while M theory (or more popularly known as string theory) is more like an attempt to describe everything that we currently know and fusing/combining many different branches of modern physics that have, up to this point, seemed impossible (having a unified theory that describes the very small (ie. quantum physics and subatomic forces) together with great but weak forces (such as gravity and space time)). It's a lot more ambitious, at any rate. We know that Einstein is correct and we know that the standard model keeps on delivering time and time again, so the idea is to try to describe everything knowing what we currently know. Hans On 2012-04-16, at 5:13 PM, Stuart McLachlan wrote: > In this case, I don't think that "flawed" is the right word. "Simplistic" would be better. > > Newton's approach is a simplified model of reality, which matches observations within > certain constraints. It is only beyond those constraints that newtonian laws break down. > > Einsteins approach is a more complex model, which widens those constraints. Current > string/multiverse/brane approaches are more complex again and further widen those > constraints. > > Each appears to be getting closer to reality, but whether we will ever get there is another > matter. > > -- > Stuart > > On 16 Apr 2012 at 23:59, Darryl Collins wrote: > >> *shrugs*.... I have to agree with you. Actually we already know this >> from Physics. Newton's approach to time, space and gravity 'seems' >> right to us as it is so much more intuitive, and indeed even works - >> we still use it today, but Einstein showed it is flawed and reality is >> nothing like we 'believe' it to be. >> > > -- > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com