Uncle Al wrote:
Mike Helland wrote:
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:<4123C6AB.50B68E1F@hate.spam.net>...
Any GUT must set as its boundary conditions h=h, c=c, G=g.
I think you mean "The GUT we expect has the boundary conditions..."
as
opposed to "Any GUT..."
I'm not sure if you're a betting man, Schwarz, but we could wager
on
this.
I bet that relativity's solution to the problem in Newtonian
physics
is overly ad-hoc, that the final solution won't require a constant
speed of light, or a speed limit in the universe. Essentially,
we'll
be able to eliminate the constant c and make finding the GUT much
easier.
Whatever is wagered must be paid in full when you and I agree that
the
GUT is found. Which very well could be never.
Interested? What shall we wager?
You have already lost. Your spews are non-physical.
What I spew has nothing to do with whether or not you win.
For you to win a GUT needs to be found where c=c, h=h, and G=G.
After all, you said: Any GUT must set as its boundary conditions h=h,
c=c, G=g.
For me to win, a GUT needs to be found without the boundary conditions
you described.
My point with this is that statements like "Any GUT must have the
boundary conditions we expect" is probably whats wrong with the search
for a GUT. If you disagree, you'll willing take the bet as its a sure
win for you.
Are you hesitant to make a wager over your claims?
.
