On Aug 31, 9:51*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
Rather bad news today at arxiv.org for string/brane notions, loop
quantum gravity, and other major quantum gravity theories.
See: arXiv:1108.6005v1 [gr-qc]
Published (and Highlighted by editor) in Astronomy and Astrophysics,
vol.533
"No quantum gravity signature from the farthest quasars"
Tamburini et al.
Not surprising, as there is an abundance of literature failing to find
such effects. Doesn't make the work less valuable, just less
interesting to me.
I maintain the point of view that without a conflicting observation
regarding GR, there's never going to be much progress on the
gravitation side of attempting to unify physics.
Anybody ready for a new paradigm that can actually make definitive
predictions, and then have them vindicated? *One that was generated
by
studying nature, rather than hoping for guidance from hermetic
mathematical abstractions.
You seem to be deeply confused about what is going on in modern
physics in 2011.
In order to break a theory, you have to push it to its' limits. That
requires taking theories as far as they can go, and the results tend
to be interesting. In GR's case, you get black holes. In QM's case
its' fuzzier as everthing is 'out there', but entanglement is a good
example of a corner case of the mathematics.
At any rate, I'm starting to wonder if you are all that interested in
science. You now post to sci.*.research every few weeks about some
latest non-discovery published somewhere, then crow about how some
theory's parameter space was shrunk.
Yet when you post about *your* theory, and I respond with literature
references that show it to be wrong, you remain silent. What's up with
that?
Examples:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...7?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...6?dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...f?dmode=source
I could always start new posts titled as 'NO DSR SIGNATURE FOUND' and
go that route. Would that help?
RLOhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity