Re: No true relativist!

On 11/08/2024 08:43 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

No true space is flat according to relativity.
>
The velocity-distance relationship is a brash generalization that
places us precisely at the center of the universe because the redshift
is observed equally in all directions.
>
Relativity is called in to perform an ad hoc rescue of the Big Bang from
placing itself at the center of the universe.
>
According to relativity, no true space is flat. This is the no-true
Scotsman fallacy or ad hoc rescue. "Not publicly retreating from the
initial, falsified a posteriori assertion
offering a modified assertion that definitionally excludes a targeted
unwanted counterexample."
>
This rescue also involves the reification fallacy, making it fail.
>
The concept of curved space is inherently self-contradictory. It
requires the same space to curve in different directions at the same
time and place, which is patent nonsense.
>
"An appeal to purity is commonly associated with protecting a preferred
group."
>
"Chauvinist/ a person displaying excessive or prejudiced loyalty or
support for a particular cause."
>
No true relativist!
>
Bye-bye, Big Bang!
>
Bye-bye Relativity!

One way to look at is that the, "cosmological constant",
that indicates the overall curvature, is,
mathematically: non-zero, yet, vanishing.
Then, it's no different from flat overall, while,
it's not saying much about curvature as the mere
geodesy as according to whatever is gravity.
So, that's not the usual interpretation, of GR, say,
that the cosmological constant is an infinitesimal,
yet it helps make it so that space-time isn't discontinuous,
and other usual reasons why "space-time is flat".
"Relativity, of motion, the theory" doesn't much say
anything and just asks mathematics that fit. So your
issue is as much with poor mathematicians as blind physicists.
The theory of it where each greater frame is that
everything within the frame is absolute to it,
may be also like an aether theory and as with
regards to the Mach-ian, why it's so that there's
a sort of local relativity theory and an absolute
theory, together.
It's agreeable that non-Euclidean geometry is
rather non-sensical or rather non-physical,
though there's torsion to figure out, and
the independence of rotating frames. I.e., of
course Euclidean geometry is sensical and physical,
or, that is to say, "space-time is flat".