It doesn't ignore this at all. The fact that you think it does says that you don't understand the non-euclidean relative theory.
OK, point us to some concise documentation on your non-Euclidean flat earth theory so that we may understand the non-euclidean relative theory.
Under Einstein's GR I will agree that spacetime is curved and so non-Euclidean, but that is curvature in spacetime, not simply space.
Both the time-like and space-like components of spacetime do have curvature
In the vicinity of comparatively small masses such as within the solar system that curvature is extremely small.
The effect on space in the vicinity of earth is to simply increase the diameter of earth around 4 mm over what it would be were space Euclidean.
So under Einstein's GR for all practical purposes, even when high precision is required the space earth occupies is Euclidean.
However, this is aside from the issue at hand - that the surface of the earth and its geography is just non-euclidean.
Not really! The earth occupies what is almost precisely
a 3-D Euclidean space.
But, if movement were constrained to the surface, then that can be considered a
2-D non-Euclidean space.
That is a convenient approximation when if comes to calculating distances and directions on the Globe.
But, in fact movement is not constrained to the surface of the earth.
We can go (a very small distance admittedly) under the surface and travel (in principle at least) an unlimited distance above the earth.
So, while non-Euclidean 2-D space is a convenient approximation, it is quite untrue to say, "surface of the earth and its geography is just non-euclidean".
If I recall correctly, various versions of this have been around for the last 5 years starting with the collapsing state map and now culminating in its fruit the non-euclidean map.
Maybe so, but you have never, to my very imperfect knowledge justified your hypothesis.
There is no way Einstein's GR justifies anything that could make a flat earth look like a sphere.
So, please give some experimental and/or theoretical justification for you Ferrari Effect and non-Euclidean earth/map or just admit its no more than a figment of your imagination.
And I claim this this statement of yours is totally false, "EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT".
I have called you out on that before, but you have done nothing the remove
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT.
In that you have numerous misleading statements, such as:
Let’s interpret the ramifications of the statement: an object in orbit travels in a straight (and thus flat), line through space through further thought experiment. First, we can define our field of interest in that taking all such theoretical orbits of our planet and realize them rightly as flat, thus defining the bounding space of interest also to be flat. It follows, given any orbit of this planet to be flat, the planet itself is flat since it satisfies our definition of flatness.
No, there is no way "an object in orbit travels in a straight (and thus flat), line through space" can be derived for GR.
Under GR an object in orbit travels in (close to) an elliptical path in space, and it only travels in a straight line (I would prefer
1 the term, geodesic) in spacetime - a massive difference.
If you want to claim that you can justify a
Davisian Relativity that says that, fine - but please either prove it factual or admit it's still nothing more that a day-dream to confuse everybody and make John Davis look ever-so-smart.
[1] This is not meant as a criticism of John Davis.
Many writers use the term
straight line in this context, but I find
geodesic less confusing.