They are not outside our view range. We don’t have the instruments to “zoom” and see that they are not flat green grass plains but strange flat… blue plains? Or we had not zoom because we have assumed that every single slice of the universe is a flat green grass plain.

Stupid example.

Let’s say that we are leaving in a “flat grass plain” part of the universe, like Kansas. From our not-so-detalied observations, the whole surface of the universe appears smooth and flat like a bowling ball. And it is, if you look at it from very long distance. Let’s even assume that for the most part the Universe is indeed a Kansas-like enviroment.

We are trying to elaborate a model/theory to descirbe how the clouds behave, form, move etc. Sometimes our observations are super-accurate whitin the model, sometimes are puzzling. Galaxy too young, too old, galaxys with lot too much dark matter, too few etc. Nothing that strange or wierd, but there seems to be some inconsistencies. We say: our model must be incomplete, we are missing something. Maybe our constants for evaporation or altitude of clouds or high/low pressure are wrong? Maybe we are missing some misterious molecule in the atmosphere that influence the clouds?

But… what if we get it perfectly right, but some other portions of the universe are not flat grass plains but maybe oceans or hills or high mountains? Not saying that the laws of physics are different, simply that given different enviromental conditions, the appears to be different.

Because maybe it is truly, “perfectly” uniforme and homogeneous only at scale > 45 b light years, while at smaller scales there are still some relevant disomogeneity.

Well no it’s an assumption/principle/axiom/postulate above all. It has been confirmed and tested that the universe has a certain degree of uniformity and homogeneity on large scales, sure… but is THAT uniforme and homogeneous that not even the slightest “environmental variation” in the way physical laws/constants appear/come into view (and thus in the way comsic objects/events/phenomena behave) is permitted/allowed?

I think that with his serve, talent and timing he could still easily defeat world n. 400/500 even without running/sprinting. But n.200 or better? I don’t think so. They are fit and consitent, and if you can’t move decently you are in trouble.

true, in theory it could be so.
However, we would have to go and see whether these hypothetical ‘second-tier players so strong that they regularly stop top players’ lose only from the top players themselves or from other players of their rank, or instead lose from third- and fourth-tier players.
In real world, it is the latter. You cannot “easily prove” here.

You can go and try to demonstrate that the n.45 or 28 or n. 17 of 1998 was better player than the n. 45 or 28 or 17 of 2015, and this would explain why the top5 performed so differently in 1998 compared to 2015.

You will find very little differences.

fluctuations in terms of performance, consistency, dangerousness, etc. begin to become evident from the top10, and very evident from the top5.

To be consistent, strong, dangerous, is almost always a “merit” of the top player, rather than a merit of his 2nd-3rd-4th tier opponents.

2008-2013 Nadal has 3 year end n.1 vs 2, 10 slam vs 6, 17 M1000 vs 14, h2h 16-15 (5-3 in GS), 1 gold medal (Djokovic 3 atp finals), 120 weeks as n.1 vs 101 weaks as n.1

Nadal had better crossed h2hs vs the big 4 in that period too (41-24 vs 37-35)

Rafa was the best player in the world during those 6 years, which were also very competitive years.

I would say that Djokovic is the best player in the world since 2014.

Still, 10 years. Amazing stuff.