Lol, I find these statements regarding Einstein being proven right once again to be the stuff of pseudo science, or at the very least, they are unscientfic. For one, claiming these high energy objects as Black Holes is speculation and to date, empirically unprovable or even testable. But that's ok, you're just supposed to have faith in the math. Faith?
Einstein derived his general theory of relativity with the mistaken assumption that et space is devoid of everything, that the ponderable bodies of our solar system are isolated by space and time which he reified. The last 60 years has shown this to be wrong, therefore, if we follow the rule of, 'if P then Q, if not Q then not P' as laid out by Karl Popper, then this incorrect assumption of Einstein's can be considered unto itself an invalidation of his gtr.
Not good enough for you.
When Vera Rubin observed 65% of mass missing in galaxies as predicted by the model of gravity as the fundamental force of celestial objects, it should have been considered an invalidation of said model. Instead, out of confirmation bias, they invented a hypothetical dark matter which no one can detect thus failing their burden of proof. That is essentially pseudo science at it best. Such a failure to predict is an invalidation of gravity as the fundamental force of the cosmos, and as such it makes Einstein's gtr irrelevant.
Karl Popper in his seminal work said it matters not how many proofs you have, all it takes is one invalidation to disqualify a theory. Here I have presented two, but science writers seem to ignore these scientific truths for their beliefs. Is that science?
So, Einstein is not right again, gravity is not the fundamental force of et space, no black holes, neutron stars, gravitational lensing, as all these speculative claims were made on the back of a failed theory.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram