Replies

Your argument doesn’t improve with repetition.

And you are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe.

In math, one can add variable to get the desired answer. If the model works, it is not necessarily "true" but working. Like the Ptolemaic navigation system. Ptolemy added epicycles to account for observed behavior. It describes the observed phenomenon, but it does not reflect what we know of plenary motion today empirically.

Jeepers, there is at least one poster on the forum whose testimony is that, because of coordinate transformation, geocentricity (the earth as the center of the solar system) is just as intellectually acceptable as heliocentricity. Most posters find it amusing, but the scientists and mathematicians cringe.

Likewise, there will always be some who insist that Euclidean geometry is representative of God’s Creation, i.e. space/time. And the mathematicians and physicists will continue to cringe.

me: Please provide your source for the claim that Einstein said there is a “common center to the universe towards all objects will eventually fall.”

kosta50: That is the only way that he can make a claim that parallel lines intersect at infinity. They must have an infinitissimal angle of convergence in order to meet at infinity. If he didn't make that claim then he is wrong.

The Point at Infinity which is defined as the intersection of two parallel lines was first considered by Desargues (1591-1661) and Poncelet (1788-1867) was first to employ it.

Einstein wasn’t even born until 1904.

Since you have no source for it, I shall dismiss your claim at 8447 that Einstein had postulated there is “a common center to the universe towards all object will eventually fall.”

That said, if Lurkers are interested in the relationship between Einstein’s relativity and Poncelet’s math vis-à-vis infinity (quantum theory and space/time) – they might want to check out Penrose’s Twistor Theory.

Likewise, there will always be some who insist that Euclidean geometry is representative of God’s Creation

And, no doubt, there are those who believe Einstein's theory of relativity and current cosmology are divine.

The Point at Infinity which is defined as the intersection of two parallel lines was first considered by Desargues (1591-1661) and Poncelet (1788-1867) was first to employ it.

It is mental exercise. Infinity is never reached. Therefore, parallel lines will never reach. We will spend an infinity getting to know God in heaven and we will never know Him. To say that two parallel lines meet at infinity is as good as saying they never meet, A-G. In other words, their angle of convergence is infinitely small. Only someone very naive would treat infinity as a real destination.

Einstein wasn’t even born until 1904

I am sure he knew of Desargues and Poncelet.

Since you have no source for it, I shall dismiss your claim at 8447 that Einstein had postulated there is “a common center to the universe towards all object will eventually fall.”

Then there was no reason to believe the universe was curved. By the way, light is bent by gravity not space or time.We have no clue whatsoever why gravity exists.
The fact that all points in the universe are diverging from each other (like dots on an expanding balloon), there is by implication a common center of gravity. Big Bang is postulated on the existence of the universal center of gravity.
But Big Bang fails to explain why, just as it fails to explain what overwhelmed the force that contained all the energy/matter in a dimensionless point, and resulted in the corresponding explosion.