🚀 go-pugleaf

Tom Roberts wrote: > > joe_avery_2005@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have never claimed that spacetime is "real"; it has always been a
> model to me. How could it possibly be otherwise???

> This, of course, goes beyond mere spacetime, and includes all of GR.

*ALL* of a POiNT on a TiME-line (i.e. WORLD-line) in SPACE-time.?!!
[With NO iNside and NO OUTside (i.e. AMBiENT) and NO related mass].

> -- GR is not the be-all and end-all, but it is quite clearly an excellent
> model --

Duh.!!
$                  GR is not CLEAR ..and is NOT a MODEL.!!
A GR gtr Ph.Tivity POiNT-wanna-be-MASS on a WORLD-line (i.e. TiME-line)
in SPACE-time is *CUTE*, but is NOT mathematically CLEAN ..or ELEGANT.!!

> -- for a very large region of the world we inhabit.
> >>Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>> Modern physics is quite clear: physical theories are MODELS.

There are *THEORETiCAL models*, *MATHEMATiCAL models* and *REAL* models.
There are, actually, NO *PHYSiCAL* theories, what-so-ever, you dimwit.!!
And, the "theory" is NOT the "mathematics" (i.e. "arithmetic"), dooOP.!!

> Offhand, I think most physicists do not think very much about such
> concepts as "ontology". But those who consider this at all know we are
> searching for _models_ and not any "underlying reality" (whatever that
> might mean).

Ph. Tivitists NEVER want to find that "underlying reality" (and, what
that means). It is finished for them, if we EVER find the "underlying
reality". There'd be no more "girls Friday", if you know what i mean.

However, we TRY to *PiECE TOGETHER* "underlying [bits of] reality" with
various MODELs. MODELs are TRiALs & ERRORs of the "underlying reality".

> On this issue, I think all thinking physicists basically agree: physical
> theories are models.

Who approved your thesis, Tom.?!! Can we see your thesis, Dimwit.?!!

> Tom Roberts     tjroberts@lucent.com
Re: Attraction VS geometry.