Kirbx Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 You know in science class I have been watching a show about string theory. String thoery is a piece of garbage but they did bring up a good point in the movie. In out universe the large like then planets and stars is ruled by the laws of General Relitivity while the small things like atoms are rules by Quantem Mechanics. Now obiously you can't have 2 sets of rules for one universe that's aburd. This comes to be a problem with things like back holes which gratitate with General Relitivity but move around each other like Quantem Mechanics. So I theorize this: if they are 2 of the same rules and are true for the same universe they must be equal. General Relitivity = Quantem Mechanics so... Quantem Mechanics - General Relitivity = 0 Bitches it took me 5 minutes to figure that out and most people spend there whole lifes. Suck it B) -7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzwood Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Yeah, any proof to support that claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 This is just rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hewj11 Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 We don't need this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incendia Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Your words are 'FAIL' my good sir,...do you even understand General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics? Problems: 1. You swore at me and everyone else who read this nonsense...that is unwise. 2. I don't think you understand GR or QM otherwise you would see how foolish you sound and how much this looks like nonsense...I think you should have done more research into QM and GR before posting such nonsensical things. Try getting a physicist to explain both theories to you. I dare you to ask for all the detail, and equations without simplifying them. 3. You have no evidence. 4. This should be in speculations as you haven't proved it. 5. That's not a formula. 6. What you said is that two unrelated theories are the same thing. 7. There is no 7 because I'm a nice person who doesn't like hurting peoples feelings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steevey Posted November 18, 2010 Share Posted November 18, 2010 It's almost as if he posted this wrong intentionally for some reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts