Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: New addition to the list of Relativity Critics/Skeptics
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:45:50 +0100
Organization: De Ster
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <1qqjdh9.1pen0glzuxdjN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
References: <3dacfdddc9713967b4dd62ef45180f28@www.novabbs.com> <1qqj6wp.1ob5jmyjy6g6dN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <826f3b6ef703d9d1e307600940a6acee@www.novabbs.com>
Reply-To: jjlax32@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a744bb2381fbd15301f3c5f31b881712";
	logging-data="3687961"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Yx4YIgqRZFxDw2wZSH9A+IJ03O0uOyGQ="
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kCj9Iz+P7Pqf1aAoUkfGCLIw6O4=
Bytes: 1738

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

> I think non-Euclidean geometry is recognizable as necessarily involving
> the reification fallacy, so it is not true. It is necessary to attribute
> qualities to abstract space to suppose that parallel lines meet. Contrary
> to Tom Roberts, in physics, one cannot use models that involve reification
> fallacy because they cannot account for causation.

FYI, all this talk of // lines meeting at infinity is obsolete.
In modern presentations Euclidean geometry is defined
as that geometry in which the Pythagorean theorem holds.
The intersection at infinity, or better non-intersetction in the finite
can then be proven as a theorem.

The two definitions can be shown to be equivalent,

Jan