Re: Attraction VS geometry
- From: Tom Roberts <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 08:38:40 -0600
jem wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:I have never claimed that spacetime is "real"; it has always been a model to me. How could it possibly be otherwise???
I think Tom probably meant how could it sensibly be otherwise.
Nope. It simply is not possible for spacetime to be "real" -- no mathematical abstraction can possibly be "real" (for any reasonable meaning of the word).
Modeling the world as a spacetime manifold (in the context of GR) has proven to be an excellent model that enables the full theory to reproduce an enormous number of mesurements to high accuracy.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Attraction VS geometry
- From: Black Knight
- Re: Attraction VS geometry
- References:
- Re: Attraction VS geometry
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Attraction VS geometry
- From: Joe Fischer
- Re: Attraction VS geometry
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Attraction VS geometry
- From: Joe Fischer
- Re: Attraction VS geometry
- From: surrealistic-dream
- Re: Attraction VS geometry
- From: Joe Fischer
- Re: Attraction VS geometry
- From: surrealistic-dream
- Re: Attraction VS geometry
- From: surrealistic-dream
- Re: Attraction VS geometry
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Attraction VS geometry
- From: surrealistic-dream
- Re: Attraction VS geometry
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Attraction VS geometry
- From: joe_avery_2005
- Re: Attraction VS geometry
- From: jem
- Re: Attraction VS geometry
- Prev by Date: Re: Attraction VS geometry
- Next by Date: Re: The End of Zombie Science
- Previous by thread: Re: Attraction VS geometry
- Next by thread: Re: Attraction VS geometry
- Index(es):