>>11553861>Yes. We all do.Are you seriously this dumb? You realize there are a lot of things scientists disagree on because they don't have all the answers, right?
Then tell me, is M theory correct? How about 10-dimensional superstring theory or 26-dimensional bosonic string theory? Loop quantum gravity? Quantum gravity itself? Exceptionally simple theory of everything? You cannot say definitively that any one of those is true or false. So no, "we all" do not know what all theories are and are not correct.
>. Look, everyone disagrees with you.You are the only one here claiming we can be absolutely certain what theories are correct.
>I said quote itI did quote it
>Also I didn't say anything about it in that postYou posted a link in response to a mention of it, as if to imply the link was relevant to it.
>No. It was a response to your assumption that one implies the other."A implies B" and "B implies A" are not the same thing, retard.
>Doesn't really matter, both are ruled out in that post.No, they're not, you even just admitted two lines up that matter may be quantized.
>Also, what's a Planck measurement?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_unitsNow let me ask again: Why do you claim that I claimed that Planck units imply discreteness of matter and energy, when I never even remotely implied or claimed that?
Before you claimed that I was claiming that you claimed things that you didn't acutally claim, when in reality that's what you're doing to me.
I think all this comes down to two things:
>You are so arrogant that you pretend to be certain about what scientific theories are and are not true>You fail to recognize that "A implies B" is different than "B implies A"Since you can't even grasp that, I highly doubt your claim that you're a published physicst, but go on, show me some of your work
