Is there an absolute truth to scientific facts, or can they be disproven from a different perspective?

Our understanding of reality is a model.

What you call “absolute truth” is the simplest possible model that explains “reality or observations (all of them).

For example, if you were an ant on the surface of a ball, you would consider the universe to be 2D… you can only move in two directions on the ball.

That said, we know that the ball is embedded (inside) a 3D spatial manifold (3D Space).

Now, consider yourself a human in this 3D space. Why isn’t this different from the ant on the ball?

You will say: HEY, THERE IS NO SURFACE WHERE I AM WALKING ON!!!

That would be a good argument!

FORTUNATELY, I KNOW BETTER AND CREATED THE HYPERGEOMETRICAL UNIVERSE THEORY (HU) WHERE I EXPLAINED “DIMENSIONALITY REDUCTION BY SURFING. "

Consider that you and your friends are surfing a circular wave in a pond (a 2D surface).

Since you are surfing (being dragged by a wave (a metric deformation of that 2D space), you can only move tangentially. Because of that, your perception of reality informs you that you live in a 1D space.

Now, squeeze that brain of yours one notch and consider the case where you are surfing a 4D metric deformation or Inner Dilation Layer). Under those circumstances, you would be in a 4D spatial manifold and only capable of traversing at will within a 3D hypersurface.

Einstein wasn’t smart enough to grasp this reality, and because of that, he constrained Physics in a 4D Spacetime… a nonsensical construct.

Here, you see yourself at position A, looking into the sky and seeing the light emitted at a galaxy at position B when the universe was denser, smaller (smaller 4D radius and 3D volume), and more homogeneous.

You and I exist in the outermost hyperspherical hypersurface and surf the inner dilation layer.

To understand how this happened, you must understand the Big Pop Cosmogenesis, the part of my theory that replaces the Big Bang Model.

#####################################

HU Basics

Recasting Newton's Laws of Dynamics in the Space Stress Strain Paradigm

HU achievements

HU explaining JWST observations:

What is the Universe's precursor?

DYNAMIC SPATIAL REFERENCE FRAME DIMENSIONALITY REDUCTION.

Pretty soon, you will hear copycats using this argument.

The Big Pop Cosmogenesis - replacement to the Big Bang

Big Pop Article

######################################

IN SUMMARY

Occam's Razor requires Science to always follow the simplest possible model that is consistent with observations.

If we don't want to obey Occam's Razor, there is always GOD. You can assign all powers to God Almighty, and ANY OBSERVATION CAN BE EXPLAINED AWAY.

Since Religion already does that, Science cannot do the same and have its own name.

The simplest possible model is a requirement because the simplest means "the least parameterized model".

We all know about OVERPARAMETERIZATION.

Here, we have a model described by a higher-order polynomial that separates ALL red dots from ALL blue dots.

We know that measurements are not perfect and that sometimes random factors (unknown parameters) affect results. That might explain a few misplaced red dots.

The objective of science is to not only explain observations but also predict outcomes.

The higher-order polynomial model might explain observations, but it will fail to predict outcomes outside the region or in other draws (observations).

It is clear that the second-order polynomial (parabola) model is better at predicting future observations or extending ranges.

That is the essence of Occam's Razor, and that is the reason one might assign "Absolute Truth" to the "Simplest Possible Model Consistent With All Observations."