line |

forgot to tell us what an inclination is, but, in the context of structure, an inclination is

a static attribute. 2 Euclid also circumscribed angles to a plane. Relativists have

altered both of these attributes to suit their arguments and end up chasing their tails.

Contemporary mathematicians perceive an angle as ‘the amount of rotation’ 3 and

talk of angles lying on spheres. 4 Of course, the loophole for the ‘curved angle’

proposal is to measure the angle between two tangents, both of which are straight

and lie on the same plane. More troublesome is to reconcile the modern dynamic

with Euclid’s static notion of angle. The relativistic result is not a photograph, but

rather a movie. The ET has to wait until the misguided relativist moves a line

sufficiently to call it an angle. If the video recorder breaks down in the middle of the

experiment, the ET returns to his planet without ever knowing what an earthly angle

is. This definition summarily outlaws the 0° angle.

The relativistic notions create insurmountable semantic problems. Among the most

notorious are the claims that there are triangles that conform to the surface of

saddles and spheres. In the religion of relativity, this amusing notion results in

triangles whose internal angles add up to more or less than 180°. If a triangle is a

geometry that has three angles and an angle is contingent on a plane, Lobachevski

and Riemann-like ‘geometries’ do not qualify as triangles. They lack two of the most

important properties of this fundamental figure: flatness and angles. First, the two

tangents that relativists use to measure angles on spheres violate their ‘rotation’

definition. Then, if these tangents are alleged to meet at a point, relativists must

define what they mean by touch. Do the tangents share a common point or are the

points ‘meeting’ side by side? Are these points spherical, circular, or hexagonal?

But let’s concede whatever relativists wish to assume. A tangent makes contact with

a sphere at a single point. We can rely on two tangents lying on an imaginary plane

to make an angle. These two tangents cannot and do not meet a third tangent that

touches the sphere at any other point. The most relativists can construct with this

hocus pocus maneuver is one angle, not three simultaneously. However, when they

argue that the internal ‘angles’ of a Riemann ‘triangle’ add up to more than 180° they

are inadvertently doing just that. The alleged Riemann triangle is a 3D figure viewed

in 2D. That’s why the alleged angles add up to more than 180°.

Finally, assuming the tangents have a point in common, this point by itself does not

qualify as an angle. Therefore, the tangents are run above parallel

The next point after the common point on each tangent does not coincide with the

curved line lying flat against the sphere. Since relativists allege that there are infinite

points between any two, the point we choose makes a difference in the angle. In

order to have an angle, both the ‘rotation’ and ‘tangent’ definitions require two lines.

As soon as the lines diverge along the surface of the sphere, we can have no angle.