No, no. I didn’t say that one cannot be certain. I teach quite the opposite. So no, I’m not guilty of my accusation in that way … perhaps in some other way.
All that said was “Without a reason, make no judgement.”
Of course not (although a rarity to actually do).
Personally, I never expect anyone to accept anything that I say without me providing a reason. And more than that, if they do not accept something that I say, it can only be that I did not provide the right kind of reason for them. The problem is, as you mentioned, most people don’t actually seek out or even listen to reasons, but rather merely want to make snap, superficial decisions and go about preaching their opinion. And that seems to be the case concerning this thread; " I did my part. All objectors are childish and ignorant.".
You’re conflating physics and metaphysics.
No. The metaphysics of General Relativity proposes an ontological foundation that space and time “warp”/“contract”/“dilate”. The physics then describes the relations involved, the equations concerning how much.
Classical Newtonian physics involves the motions of items within a space described by the ontology of Newton’s Laws of Motion. It is an ontology of rigid bodies, forces, and scaler velocities (It’s claim as to the nature of being and existence). The Newtonian metaphysics has no room for “bending space” as in General Relativity (“gravitational force” doesn’t exist in Relativity). The question as to whether space bends is an ontological question, from which physics equations can be derived in order to give detail concerning the specifics. As it turns out, neither ontology is true to reality, but that is another issue. They are both “physics” based upon their own “metaphysics” presumptions.
One cannot have a physics without there being an underpinning metaphysics.