Paddoboy, nobody cares about your agenda claims, because this is simply a cheap ad hominem argument.
You say this as if your are presenting some profound insight, while in truth you are presenting assumptions that rely on accepting your conceptual interpretations, of both SR and GR.
Neither, SR or GR are wrong, even while they and every theory and/or model we have can only be an approximation of the aspects of reality they attempt to describe.
Approximations are simply wrong, simply because they are only approximations. If they would be true, they would have to be exact, not approximations. An approximation may be accurate, useful, much better than other approximations, the best what is available today, but all this does not make them true. If we have no true theory, pity, but such is life. No reason to name the approximations we have true theories.
Both, are in fact accurate within the context of obvious limitations.
The limitations have not been obvious, they are the result of scientific research which has shown that they are wrong outside these limitations.
For example, in 1905 it was not known that SR is unable to handle gravity. Poincare has proposed in 1905 a special-relativistic theory of gravity. This theory of gravity appeared to be wrong. Einstein has found a better theory of gravity, which makes predictions which contradict SR, namely that light rays will be curved by gravity.
That Einstein's theory has singularities, solutions with closed causal loops, and is incompatible with quantum theory was also not known 1915, but has been found only later. So, no, these things are not obvious, they are well-known results of scientific evaluation of these theories.
You are confusing conceptual interpretation and speculative application, with the fundamental descriptive accuracy. SR has been very successful in describing observation and experience where gravitation can be ignored and GR has been very successful in describing gravitation in the weak local field limit, of our solar system.
And flat earth theory remains very successful in describing observations inside my living room, but even on the nearby soccer field. So, there is no confusion, I do not deny that SR and GR, as well as NT and flat Earth theory, have their domain of applicability as approximations. But this does not make them true theories. A theory which is true does not have limitations.
You said above, ".., and that GR is wrong we are almost certain (given the singuralities and incompatibility with gravity). ",
Ups, this should have been "incompatibility with
quantum theory".
Singularities are an anomaly arising from extending GR's locally accurate description of the gravitational field, to extremes beyond its original intent... And what the predicted singulaties have to do with the validity and accuracy of GR is entirely dependent on projecting a conceptual interpretation, beyond the original intent of the field description of gravitational mechanics.
No. There was no such original intent for GR to be somehow limited.
This is an important difference between GR and my ether theory of gravity. In this ether theory, it is clear from the start that the equations are only a large distance limit, and will become invalid for an atomic theory of the ether.
We know there are things out there that seem outwardly consistent with singularities... But as has been documented, with quotes in earlier threads, not many of the professors polled believe that singularities, as literally described by the math, exist in reality. There is something there but how can anyone say they are inconsistent with GR, when they are not believed to be real and their prediction originates from extending a locally successful model, to extremes beyond testable limits?
You obviously mingle truth and empirical testability. If we cannot prove, with empirical tests, that GR is false, this does not tell us that GR is true.
This last is almost a laughable statement, when in the context of the discussion, and as I said above.., none of our speculations, theories and models, rise about the level of approximations...
I agree, the theories we have today are only approximations. They are not final true theories. And even if they are very accurate approximations, so accurate that we will be unable, for many years, to observe violations of these approximations, this does not make them true.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of physicists who think differently, in particular among string theorists there are a lot of people who think that string theory is some final, fundamentally true theory. Other people think that at least some parts of GR, namely the equivalence principle, are true fundamental insights, and not only approximations.
It is as if you picked up a map of the city and declare it inaccurate, because it does not tell you anything about the bottom of the ocean.
And, so what? Does this hypothetical map of the city tell us anything about the bottom of the ocean? Not? The map of the city is a useful approximation, fine, but not more.
The point of this picture is, of course, that nobody has claimed that this map is the city itself, and even less the whole Earth. So that the point made - that it does not describe the bottom of the ocean - becomes a triviality. But, so what, the triviality remains true.
And, quite different from this example, there are parts of modern scientific theories where it is not clear at all if they have limitations. What about, say, the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics? What about energy conservation? What about causality? Do they have limitations or not? Are they only approximations or are they fundamental truths? This is not clear or obvious. One can argue that they have limitations, and consider theories where these concepts are violated, but up to now we have no clear evidence that they are really violated, really have limitations.
