Other Theories?

SergiusPaulus

SergiusPaulus

Senior Member
Is the theory of relativity required to explain certain aspects of existence or do we have the knowledge to circumvent the theory? Are there certain conditions that go against that theory, providing opportunities for new alternative explanations? It seems so much weight is put on that theory that it prevents a progression of new theories being developed. Does the theory of relativity compete with other theories or knowledge?
 
The General Theory of Relativity is not compatible with Quantum mechanics. Main stream scientists claim to not know why.

I've pointed out that the Principle of Equivalence fails completely. Yet believers refuse to accept actual physical facts.

Our science knowledge will not progress using make believe theories. Why not just accept the actual facts to define how science is?
 

How is scientific fact developed? Does it always require a theory first or can a theory be generated after a factual event has occurred? I guess it’s both. Theory to prove a future event and theory to explain a past event.

In the example of John Titor how does the science community evolve from our current theories to scientific fact? Something has to occur in order to be able to manufacture the equipment or technology explained by Titor.

Maybe some knowledge is quantum entangled with the divine environment. “As above, so below. “ and whatever influences that environment to intervene is whatever it is. With Titor claiming to be a Christian I would ponder that the divine environment has some involvement.
 

Scientific fact is just observable and/or measurable data. No theories are necessary for actual facts.

John Titor AKA Morey Haber had a fanciful story to tell all based on micro-singularities. Which still don't exist. At this point in time most people no longer believe the story. But there are still holdouts. Hopefully they don't hold their breath while waiting.
 

Top