[continued from previous message]   
      
   >tetrads and F-Lorentzians” is suggestive but not compelling without a   
   >lot more argument. People have tried non-standard formulations of GR   
   >and QFT; some are elegant, but none have become mainstream for good   
   >reason—standard differential geometry already works extraordinarily   
   >well.   
   >   
   >### Bottom line   
   >   
   >This is the kind of writing you get from someone who has had a genuine   
   >epiphany about how natural and powerful non-standard methods feel, and   
   >who has then run with it all the way into a grand foundational   
   >unification program—without pausing to check which parts are already   
   >accepted, which parts are speculative but respectable, and which parts   
   >are currently fringe or idiosyncratic.   
   >   
   >It’s not crankery (the references are too sophisticated for that), but   
   >it’s also not disciplined mathematics or physics. It’s visionary   
   >prose—poetry almost—written by someone who believes they have seen the   
   >One True Continuum hiding behind 150 years of archimedean prejudice.   
   >   
   >Interesting? Absolutely.   
   >Correct in every particular? Very much not.   
   >Worth reading as a provocation that makes you re-examine why we ever   
   >thought the standard real numbers were the end of the story?   
   >Definitely.   
   >   
   >--------end here   
   >   
   >i say it's all crank.   
      
      
   Grok sez: "There’s a grain—sometimes more than a grain—of truth here,   
   but the presentation wildly overclaims."   
      
      
   "a grain"????   
      
      
   That translates to 99.999999999 percent LIES! GARBAGE!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)