Hello.

I have a few questions that I would appreciate an answer to. My first question ; there is an abundance of empirical support for the theory of general relativity. General relativity extends special relativity by viewing special relativity as a "special" case of general relativity in which there is no energy density that contributes to the deviation of the metric tensor from it's hyperbolic flat norm. As a brief primer of general relativity I'll explain a couple of things. Take a right angled two dimensional coordinate system. Start at the origin. Move in the positive y direction by a very small amount. Move in the positive x direction by a very small amount. Technically the distance you move must be a differential distance, an infinitesimally small quantity which we call dy and dx respectively, with dy being the infinitesimal distance you move in the y direction and dx being the infinitesimally small distance you move in the x direction. The total distance traveled is now the length of a hypotenuse of a right triangle. In flat euclidean space the length of this hypoteneuse, the total distance traveled will be the square root of a*dx^2 + b*dy^2, where a and b are constants. If we decide to measure the x axis in meters and the y axis in units of 2 meters, then a will be 1/2 and b will be 1. However, if a and b are not constants and are instead functions of the coordinates themselves, then things get interesting. However if we zoom in close enough the space will be LOCALLY EUCLIDEAN. This is because any function of the coordinates changes by an infinitely small amount if you look at infinitely small changes in coordinates, and thus it is constant over such infinitesimally small scales. This means that as you move a finite distance your meter stick also changes; the way that distance is measured fundamentally changes. Now, if we have a coordinate system in which the coordinate axes are not at right angles to each other, then the total distance is also determined by cross terms, c*dx*dy + d*dy*dx. This can be determined with simple trig, we now impose the reality that c and d must be equal, otherwise you have an asymmetric space in which distance is an ill-defined mathematical concept. Therefore in any arbitrary two dimensional space we have that ds^2, which is the infinitesimal length traveled, = a(x,y)*dx^2 + b(x,y)*dy^2 + 2c(x,y)*dx*dy. We now arrange all of these functions a(x,y), b(x,y), and c(x,y) in something called a metric tensor which is a two by two matrix in our case. We denote this matrix with the term G(ij), where is the column and j is the row. G(x,x) would be a(x,y), G(x,y) and G(y,x) would be c(x,y) and G(y,y) would be b(x,y). There is something called the Euler Lagrange equation, which is a system of partial differential equations whose solutions yield "functionals" (like that length function I just gave you) that are minimized. In this case our functionals are lengths of a curve through space (with two dimensions, you would get two functions, giving x and y as functions of length traveled). Ultimately the euler lagrange equations transform into the geodesic equation, whose solutions give you the shortest path between two points given the metric tensor G(ij).

Now, we apply the same thing to space-time. In this case Einstein proposed that the Einstein tensor equals a constant times the stress energy tensor. The stress energy tensor is a symmetric tensor that tells you the distribution of energy in space. The Einstein tensor is built from several other tensors and functions of the metric tensor. Specifically it includes the ricci curvature scalar multiplied by the metric tensor and the ricci curvature tensor. Both are built from derivatives of the metric tensor, making this a system of non linear partial differential equations whose solutions are the functions that make up the metric tensor (they are nearly impossible to solve though, analytical solutions exist in a few cases). Once you have those you just have to solve the geodesic equation and you have your path through space time, which explains gravity.

Now there is an ABUNDANCE of evidence supporting general relativity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity . Do you genuinely believe that all of these have been faked? If so, what is the purpose of doing so? What is the purpose of pretending that the earth is round anyhow? I mean really? What benefit do scientists have to gain from lying about the shape of the earth? If the earth was flat then that would've become what we know to be true, since that is the goal of science, the same science that has given you these computers, allowed you to eat plentifully and live long lives. Not only this but relativistic effects are present in your transistors that run your computer, they had to be accounted for in order to make your computer run. A major test of GR has been known for a century now. The highest point of the orbit of Mercury changes. It moves around in a circle. This effect was predicted by Newton's theory as a result of the perturbing effect of the rest of the planets on it's orbit, this results in a deviation from inverse square forces, which cause such procession. However the predicted procession was off by 48.5 arc seconds per century, the experimental error at the time for this measurement was 1/5th of an arc second, so it's clearly a significant deviation. The probability of it being random error is on the order of 10^-500 at the time. One of the useful analytical solutions to the einstein field equations in that of a point mass non rotating un-charged black hole. This can be used to model any spherically symmetric body outside of the bodies radius, since such a body acts as a point mass black hole outside of it's radius. On the inside it acts much differently, the metric to use in that case is that found by solving the relativistic hydrostatic equilibrium equations and using that to model the stress energy tensor, and then solving that. Using this metric we can generate leading order power series calculations of the per orbit procession, and it is exactly what we observe, 48.5 arc seconds per century. To date it remains one of the most accurate predictions in all of physics. If you genuinely believe that scientists such as myself would fake such results, then you are unfortunately delusional. I have no reason to do so. My colleagues have no reason to do so. No scientist has any reason to do so. Is it a satanic conspiracy?