🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 12, 1:18 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> GSS wrote:
> > Post Relativity generations of Physicists and Mathematicians consider
> > the spacetime continuum to be a physical entity which can even be
> > deformed and curved. [...]
>
> No. Not even close.
>
> We consider the spacetime manifold to be a MODEL of the world (or of
> interesting imaginary worlds), and to accurately model what we observe
> that manifold must have intrinsic curvature corresponding to gravitation.
>
> Tom Roberts

But you are ready to abandon your MODEL as soon as it stops bringing
you money and power aren't you Roberts Roberts:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/40698de7cd7bdfb0?
Tom Roberts, August 25: "IMHO it is the whole concept of "manifold"
that is at most risk of becoming obsolete in future theories. That is,
I strongly suspect that at the Planck scale the fundamental structure
of the world is not continuous."

In other words Roberts Roberts, you will abandon your MODEL as soon as
Einstein zombie world eventually comes to realize that Einstein's 1954
prediction is in fact today's sad reality:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."

Bryan Wallace is also relevant here:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "I expect that the scientists of the future will
consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much
the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still
and the Universe moves around it."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com