Summations Only

Okay, let's make this really simple.Do you agree that General Relativity says that spacetime is curved?I'm not asking if you think spacetime is curved, just if you think General Relativity says it is.

Absolutely, I explained General Relativity to my uncles once, all of whom wouldn't have finished what you lads call high school, using a kitchen table cloth as spacetime.However ICANT doesn't even refuse to understand the theories themselves. Instead, like with a lot of the creationists, we don't really ever get into arguments about the actual science, but instead get drawn into stupid discussions about what a webpage actually says or having him reference a site or a book stating exactly what we say as if it supports his argument.Silly things like somebody linking to an article discussing a dinosaur fossil found in Europe, let's say, only to have the creationist poster say that there was no reference to Europe at all, only to France. Which starts the chain of posts:
"France is in Europe, AAARRRGGHHH!!!!"I'm always reminded of a discussion here years ago with IamJoseph, where this had reached the point where people were posting things like
"You can stand on the surface of the Earth right? You agree with that, right?"In short, we don't discuss the experimental support for a theory and whether it's actually strong enough, but instead spend three hundred posts trying to get somebody to agree to the possible validity of the concept of experimental evidence.

What's the difference? The lines curve on a sphere because the sphere itself is curved. Can you explain the distinction?

Cool to have my own nickname now. Not as good as Vatican, Dr. Inadequate or No No, but I can't complain. So far and again in this post, you repeatedly ask us to justify a version of cosmology not described by any professional cosmologist. I fail to see why we should defend a theory that doesn't exist. Perhaps, for the next thread you should read a proper account of what the Big Bang says. I've recommended Kolb and Turner, you can skip the mathematical parts and still get a good idea of the theory.

In this thread, after many methodical posts by several people, we have finally convinced ICANT that General Relativity says what General Relativity says. He still thinks those ideas are stupid, but at least the ideas are now inside the mental category of General Relativity.This may help in the next thread where if statements by GPS satellite constructors say "This satellite requires General Relativity", he will now know what ideas are encompassed by that statement and hence what the satellite builders are actually saying, rather than somehow reading "This satellite requires General Relativity" as not involving the curvature of spacetime.