> the very issue that Sabine is raising in the original article. Doesn't have anything to do with the mistake the poster I have been responding to has been mak

> the very issue that Sabine is raising in the original article. Doesn't have anything to do with the mistake the poster I have been responding to has been making. Sabine is talking about people who understand a given theoretical model but aren't willing to give it up when it either fails a test against experiment, or is shown to be in principle untestable by experiment. The poster I have been responding to does not understand the theoretical model being discussed, so is in a different position from the people Sabine is criticizing. > Alternatively, you're literally arguing that the mathematics of the theory of relativity bears no meaning in reality. I am arguing no such thing. I am simply making clear that, like any physical theory, GR has parts of its math that represent physically meaningful parts of reality, and parts of its math that represent human conventions that make calculations easier but have no physical meaning. Coordinate charts/reference frames, which is what the poster I have been responding to means by "point of view", are in the latter category. But invariants--quantities that are the same regardless of any choice of coordinates or reference frame--are also part of the math of GR, and those do have physical meaning.