Michael Mozina wrote:Sithri wrote:Your definition of metaphysical as that which cannot be explained through cause-and-effect is pertinent to the space-time continuum that is used to anchor the 'geometry' that GRT requires. There is no way of proving or disproving the metaphysical space-time-continuum that GRT requires, and there is not a single shred of evidence that SRT has been proven with time-dilation or length-contraction.

I suppose it depends on how one defines the term "evidence" and the specific aspect of GR that we're discussing. The bending of light around massive objects enjoys some amount of evidence and support since Eddington first "tested" that concept during an eclipse. If plasma is bending the light, why would it always bend it inward around an object rather than bending things in a more random pattern due to local conditions in the plasma?

In terms of time dilation, many spacecraft experiments seem to confirm the idea:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/p ... -the-test/

I'm not sure of this, but wouldn't we see bending of electrons' masses around an object with gravitationally strong amounts of mass with Newton's Law? Perhaps Newton's law and the mass of the electron would predict bending of light around an object if we consider that h, Planck's constant, which has the mass of an electron, which quantifies the photon's energy when multiplied by the photon's frequency, instead of a massless photon, could account for the bending of light around an object?

Michael Mozina wrote:

And if you read my writing called "Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT" in the section of this forum called "The Future of Science" you will see reasons for discounting the two theories. I'd enjoy discussion on that subject and to see if I'm right in my understanding of SRT and GRT.

I'll have to take a look at it when I get time. Thanks for the suggestion. Once I've read it maybe I'll have a better handle on your objections to GR.

Note however that the recent failure of the LCDM model to correctly anticipate the redsift of more distant objects is entirely based on the LCDM model and the LCDM interpretation of photon redshift. LCDM failed that test, but not necessarily due to a failure in GR itself, rather it failed because of their interpretation of redshift as an effect of space expansion. I would classify the concept of "Space expansion" as a metaphysical optional "add on" to a GR formula, but GR is not dependent upon space expansion, just the LCDM model.

My original point is that GR is not incompatible with the EU/PC model of cosmology, even if the LCDM cosmology model *is* incompatible with EU/PC theory. The problem with LCDM isn't so much the inclusion of GR, it's the *misuse* of GR.

General Relativity predicts black holes which are a flaw in mathematics. In General Relativity there are only one mass in the entire universe, if I'm not mistaken in my understanding of GRT. When using two masses they have to rely upon a mathematical magic trick of identity in mathematics with Newton's law of gravity.

I implore you to check out my thread "Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT" in the section of this forum called "The Future of Science"