Reply to comment

Jim:

I'll reserve complete judgment until you've been able to respond to all I've posted (I know I posted a couple of very long messages). However, so far, I'm very disappointed.

Yes, it is true that our experience is sufficient to rule the scenario of “when the whole spacetime manifold is flat” as inconsistent with this universe. But what of other universes? Just because a scenario is inconsistent with our universe, should that preclude us from being able to develop a framework that can encompass such? (Especially when it costs us nothing, as is the case withing General Relativity.)

Far beyond this, none of your other scenarios can be dismissed out of hand, simply due to the very narrow range of our experience. Besides, what would you expect of free neutral test particles within a box surrounded by a massive ring? (Say the extremely massive, and huge, dark matter ring that has been observed within our universe.) Or what about positioning your box in orbit about a spinning black hole? (I say "in orbit" so as to have it in "free fall", or as close as possible.) What would be the motion of free neutral test particles within the box if the box is set to orbit in such a way that (at least for a period of time) it maintains a constant orientation with respect to the distant stars. What if it had a different rotation?

If we are to be able to unify that which is described by our, arguably, two greatest theories (General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics); or if we are to ever hope to create methods of traveling (effectively) faster than the speed of light (or, in other words, if we are to ever hope to visit any of the wondrous places in our vast universe, outside out very restricted, parochial experience in and near this rock upon which we reside), then we need thinkers that can handle a far greater range of circumstances than what we have locally.

Unfortunately, Jim, you are showing yourself to be insufficient to the task. Your "real world" is far too restricted. (I, and others, have no problem explaining all that lies within your "real world". So I most certainly don't mean that your "real world" is too "restrictive". The difference is I, and others, have a viewpoint [or viewpoints], and theories, that can extend far beyond your "real world" to encompass much more that is possible, to say nothing of that which has been, and will yet be observed within our universe.)

As I said, I'll reserve complete judgment until you've been able to respond to all I've posted. But at this point, I'm very disappointed.

Take care.

David