AbstractDreamer

Thank you for all your corrections. I've had a eureka moment on the theory of everything. GR models the past. QM models the future. It was so obvious. They are theories of time.

Where I said calculus contradicts HUP, was in the context of GR and observables, NOT as a mathematical tool in itself. Whether I gave reason for other readers to think I have no idea what I'm talking about is again irrelevant. Lets say I factually had no idea what I'm talking about, not just readers thinking that I don't. How does that change anything? Does that justify your responses in COMPETELY failing to acknowledge the most important point and focus SOLEY on my "extraordinarily silly statements"? I have just shown GR metric tensor contains conjugate variables in it's differential equations, in direct violation of HUP. Why didn't you just tell me this - IN ADDITION to correcting all my silly statements? Why focus on the silly statements?

You're going to have to quote me where is said things were "flat-out wrong". I still maintain the overall gist of what I was trying to say is valid - that GR violates HUP - despite having to talk about irrelevancies like what x and y represent, what isn't superposition, whether infinitesimals are irrelevant. I left the conversation 4 months ago with a sense that I was entirely wrong. A sense that you and others contributed towards. A sense that was entirely false. I had to go and find proof that conjugate pairs existed in the metric tensor because no-one here was willing to overtly support my suspicion of HUP violation. Your silence on that point is louder than all the minor mistakes I may have made.

I wouldn't say it was "obvious". When I first mentioned this, most of the response were not in agreement. Instead, most of the responses were trying to nit pick irrelevances and mistakes that I made, instead of getting straight to the point. Going back to the OP. Here is a "flaw".

Can anyone verify this information? Does this then corroborate my claim about GR violating HUP? We have conjugate pairs in the metric tensor.

Ok and gravitation potential and mass density are paired? So GR metric tensor for spacetime curvature, energy, momentum and stress that produce those differential equations. None of those differential equations involve conjugate variables?

It is as irrelevant if GR is flawed as it is if GR is limited. I am sorry if you want to talk about what you claimed or not. You did not claim GR is flawed I agree. My first point was about GR's premise on a differentiable manifold. I've made my case. OP asked about flaws, where it breaks down. Everyone here doesn't think its a flaw, because they prefer to call it a defining limitations. Semantics. Limitations are the boundaries where it breaks down. So OP was really asking what are the limitations and why are they the way they are. And differentiable manifolds is one such limitation - my case - as are singularities Including simultaneously measuring Space and one other specific variable say, Time? to arbitrary precision at the same time? Well there you go. it defines the limit of their applicability. The boundary where it breaks down. What the OP intended to mean when he said "flaw".

I dont know what else im expected to say. I've already made my position very very clear. GR is a model of Space and Time founded upon Calculus. Space and Time are conjugate variables. Calculus with conjugate variables break the Uncertainty Principle. Therefore GR breaks the Uncertainty Principle. Call it a flaw, limitation, incompleteness, whatever you like. Refute me, instead of arguing over irrelevances (not you) or calling me an idiot (also not you).

Honestly, I'm just reciprocating the attitude shown to me. I'm not shouting, and its not at everybody. I'm reciprocating the attitude that SwansonT showed me, when saying to me that I need to speak the language of physics or nobody would understand me, with the demeaning implication I couldn't speak the language. When in actual fact, what I said was perfectly understandable. Lets talk about Calculus, conjugate variables, Space and Time, and General Relativity.

Pairs of non-commuting operators... Like position and momentum Like pressure and volume Like space and time?

Nah. Y can be anything I choose the axes to be. This is basic algebra, where symbols replace variables - INCLUDING momentum, and IRRESPECTIVE of whether momentum is p. So in this case I'm calling my y-axis Momentum. Is that ok with you? Do I get your approval? You said nobody would understand me, do you think they would understand this? Shall we waste more time arguing over irrelevances? Lets talk about the "very limited set of variables" then. Calculus of course is independent of what its variables are, that goes without saying. But if calculus is used on conjugate variables, then it contradicts Uncertainty Principle. So instead of blanket claiming Calculus isn't the limitation, SHOW ME! Show me that Calculus is not performed on conjugate variables in General Relativity

Conjugate or not depends on what the axes represent in observables. You cannot make a blanket statement at x and y are not conjugate before you apply units to them. Well you can, but you'd be wrong. What if x was position and y was momentum? Would you then agree x and y are conjugate?

OP is talking about fundamental flaws in GR. Calculus is in direct contradiction with Uncertainty Principle. This is not just some trivial dichotomy. Its both a limitation and a flaw. I don't accept the argument that because its a limitation, we shouldn't discuss it as a flaw.

The most obvious "flaw" in GR is that its model of reality is premised on a differentiable manifold. Calculus assumes and necessarily requires the logical leap-of-faith that if you break a curve into infinitesimally small parts, then each part is a straight line. An infinitesimal change in y with respect to an infinitesimal change in x. Calculus claims it knows the value of both x and y, at infinitesimality. Quantum uncertainty principle claims that at infinitesimality, observables are in superposition. You cannot know fully and simultaneously both the values of y and x.

Thank you all for being really specific and pedantic in your wordings. I genuinely need this to help understand with more clarity as I know words are a poor substitute for maths. I will take some time to absorb all this so I can pose questions that make more sense in terms of real physics and mathematics.