I'm aware of the (few) true confirmed predictions of relativity. SR gets speed based clock slowing half right (the half wrong shows the theory is wrong). GR gets clock slowing based on distance from Earth right, but fails to properly explain gravity near earth.
Conceptually and physically it is a complete mess. Saying something naturally falls (faster and faster) due to "curved space time" is the height of "trusting the science". Curved space time is an undefined and unknown dark energy or material. It magically acts on objects without applying any force. It both is and isn't. That's nonsense of course, and that nonsense is exposed by explanations like this one.
“Curved spacetime” is the allegorical explanation to physically describe the nature of relativity. I intrinsically distrust classical relativity theory simply because it was presented by a confirmed plagiarist, but we’ve measured what appear to be its effects in several ways, so it can’t really be denied.
Relativity being a conceptual mess of nonsense can't be denied. However many of the alleged confirmations can be denied.
As I mentioned, the fact SR only gets clock slowing half right (an asymmetrical effect between frames) shows SR is wrong. It uses the Lorentz transformation, but Lorentz expected an asymmetric effect, while relativity expects there is no preferred frame, therefore one frame would not be effected more than the other. There is no way for one frame to "know" it is moving faster than the other to slow its clocks down. GPS thus only uses Lorentz's equations regarding velocity.
Many of the GR confirmations are dubious. Gravitational waves are silly. They measure vibrations through the Earth and assume those must be gravitational waves and then assume what caused them. Pseudo-science at best.
The alleged bending of space (light) around the sun can be accounted for with diffraction.
Black holes are based on fanciful mathematics that divide by zero. The alleged image of a black hole took so much processing the picture itself is doubtful, but even if true all it shows is they found a ring of light.
An explanation of ill posed eigenvalue problems. This issue exists in many mathematical "models" where the computed value approaches extremely large numbers. For example, many Mechanics (note the M not m) practitioners actually believe that the stress at a crack tip is INFINITE, rather than just saying the model in use becomes unusable in that region (which now they do assume and use boundary layer methods). So, you get a bunch of crap like "the black hole has immesurable gravitational fields" and what not.
It's even worse though. The concept of "black" is used to denote the fact that nobody is actually observing ANYTHING (you have to trust me goys, you can't see it but it's there). Dig into it and you see the idea is really just a flawed use of a "center of mass" computation where the black hole is the statistical "expected value" of the fields measured (or not even measure, but assumed).
In short, use an inadequate model, or a model that works in a simplified space (like all models, or your computations literally take forever) to a "global" (largest compartment containing "everything") system. You'll always get singularites (which is technically a paradox). People then take these results that don't make sense, then assume it's right anyway, and make up "story time" explanations.
I'm aware of the (few) true confirmed predictions of relativity. SR gets speed based clock slowing half right (the half wrong shows the theory is wrong). GR gets clock slowing based on distance from Earth right, but fails to properly explain gravity near earth.
Conceptually and physically it is a complete mess. Saying something naturally falls (faster and faster) due to "curved space time" is the height of "trusting the science". Curved space time is an undefined and unknown dark energy or material. It magically acts on objects without applying any force. It both is and isn't. That's nonsense of course, and that nonsense is exposed by explanations like this one.
“Curved spacetime” is the allegorical explanation to physically describe the nature of relativity. I intrinsically distrust classical relativity theory simply because it was presented by a confirmed plagiarist, but we’ve measured what appear to be its effects in several ways, so it can’t really be denied.
Relativity being a conceptual mess of nonsense can't be denied. However many of the alleged confirmations can be denied.
As I mentioned, the fact SR only gets clock slowing half right (an asymmetrical effect between frames) shows SR is wrong. It uses the Lorentz transformation, but Lorentz expected an asymmetric effect, while relativity expects there is no preferred frame, therefore one frame would not be effected more than the other. There is no way for one frame to "know" it is moving faster than the other to slow its clocks down. GPS thus only uses Lorentz's equations regarding velocity.
Many of the GR confirmations are dubious. Gravitational waves are silly. They measure vibrations through the Earth and assume those must be gravitational waves and then assume what caused them. Pseudo-science at best.
The alleged bending of space (light) around the sun can be accounted for with diffraction.
Black holes are based on fanciful mathematics that divide by zero. The alleged image of a black hole took so much processing the picture itself is doubtful, but even if true all it shows is they found a ring of light.
An explanation of ill posed eigenvalue problems. This issue exists in many mathematical "models" where the computed value approaches extremely large numbers. For example, many Mechanics (note the M not m) practitioners actually believe that the stress at a crack tip is INFINITE, rather than just saying the model in use becomes unusable in that region (which now they do assume and use boundary layer methods). So, you get a bunch of crap like "the black hole has immesurable gravitational fields" and what not.
It's even worse though. The concept of "black" is used to denote the fact that nobody is actually observing ANYTHING (you have to trust me goys, you can't see it but it's there). Dig into it and you see the idea is really just a flawed use of a "center of mass" computation where the black hole is the statistical "expected value" of the fields measured (or not even measure, but assumed).
In short, use an inadequate model, or a model that works in a simplified space (like all models, or your computations literally take forever) to a "global" (largest compartment containing "everything") system. You'll always get singularites (which is technically a paradox). People then take these results that don't make sense, then assume it's right anyway, and make up "story time" explanations.