> The GP's statement sounds like a tautology. Maybe it does to you, but it isn't a tautology. It's a false claim. See below. > Is there a substantial differen

> The GP's statement sounds like a tautology. Maybe it does to you, but it isn't a tautology. It's a false claim. See below. > Is there a substantial difference between "from our point of view" and "as far as we are concerned ... in reality" under the theory of relativity? Yes. A "point of view" in relativity (by which is meant something like a coordinate chart or a reference frame) might not be capable of describing all of reality. So you cannot infer, just from the fact that a "point of view" does not contain some particular event, that that event is not part of reality. Before you can draw that inference, you first have to show that the "point of view" in question is capable of describing all of reality (which in relativity means all of whatever spacetime manifold you are dealing with). The "point of view" the GP is trying to use is not capable of describing all of the spacetime manifold we are dealing with. So it does not justify the claim the GP is making, that any event not described by that point of view cannot be part of the spacetime manifold. > Using the mathematics of a physics theory to deny a tautological(?) statement Is not what I am doing. I am using the mathematics of relativity to correct a wrong claim by someone who (apparently) doesn't understand that mathematics properly. Everything I am saying is basic general relativity and can be found in any GR textbook.