"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
om...

This thread interests me, not because I understand a bloody word of it,
but because people with degrees in the subject end up squabbling over what
appear to be fundamentals. Is that the nature of the beast maybe?
So far we seem to have graduates from Imperial College and York, but I may
have missed some. Any chance of the others combatants declaring their
credentials? Not as a dick waving exercise, but to give people like me an
insight into the extent to which experts can disagree.

There is no disagreement with the fundamental laws or the equations
governing them (well not in this thread).
There are a group who think the equations are universal and a group that
think they are not.
So far the group that don't think they are universal have posted stuff that
the "universal" group can't or won't explain. other than to state they are
universal so must apply.

There are a lot of scientists and mathematicians trying to produce a
universal model ATM, the latest attempt is called string theory. They
wouldn't be doing this if the others were universal would they?
What the "universal" group are saying is that the people working on string
theory aren't as clever as they are as the existing maths is universal.

To see why some think they are not universal have a look at
http://www.superstringtheory.com/index.html and then decide for yourself if
you can apply E=mc2 everywhere and interchange mass for energy at a whim.

You will notice that at least one problem they are working on is the fact
that relativity tends not to work unless you ignore the effect of gravity
(http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic3.html). Something you can't
do in the real world even if you are TNP.
The reality is that this is not an argument between experts at all.