Strange

Sadly, that doesn't necessarily confer credibility. (See also: argument from authority.)

They often have very poor journalism that grossly misrepresents the science they are reporting. The preprint for that paper was on Vixra and it was published in a very obscure journal. The others are just personal theories, of the sort that get presented on forums like this. I wouldn't give too much credence to the articles in New Scientist, never mind the letters page. (NS had to stop people posting comments to they online articles because it attracted so much crackpottery.)

They are not exactly high quality sources. But, you are right, it is not a very original idea.

It also relates to the explanation of why the world population will continue to increase, even though average fertility has fallen below the replacement level. (Hans Rosling has, of course, a brilliant video explaining this using cardboard boxes.)

They collaborated on the development of the maths of GR. Grossman persuaded him that Riemannian geometry was the right way to go and mentored him when he was studying tensors. Some people (I'm sure not you) like to suggest he wasn't able to do the necessary maths himself. I don't know if he was "world class" but he was a very good mathematician. And was originally more interested in studying maths than physics. "One of the many urban legends about the Relativity genius claims that Einstein failed mathematics at school. Nothing could be further from the truth: in fact, his grades in Algebra and Geometry were even better than in Physics." https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/mathematics-and-albert-einstein/ "In 1935, a rabbi in Princeton showed him a clipping of the Ripley's column with the headline "Greatest living mathematician failed in mathematics." Einstein laughed. "I never failed in mathematics," he replied, correctly. "Before I was fifteen I had mastered differential and integral calculus." In primary school, he was at the top of his class and "far above the school requirements" in math." http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1936731_1936743_1936758,00.html

Geometry is a set of measurements (or, better, the mathematics of how those measurements are related). It is a mathematical abstraction, a tool. So different observers of the same thing will apply different geometry to their measurements. It is an effect of the observer, not the observed. Or, at least, the relationship between the observer and the observed.

I think he was just referring to the fact that space-time is everywhere in ... well, space-time! (Someone did point out that it was slightly more than that but the subtlety was rather lost on me). He did go on to make it clear that this use of the word aether was not supposed to indicate that there was any material substance involved.

Do you mean, because in reality the Sun doesn't vanish? But I know that, logically, there is no way we can know if the Sun really exists or not. But I am happy to go with the "obvious" conclusion that it does. Ditto the curvature of space-and time. Just to clarify this. I think it is more accurate to say that, according to GR, the geometry of space-time curves. But geometry is just a mathematical abstraction that we have invented. And the geometry really is curved (we invented it in the first place and if we want to say it is curved, we can).

I don't think it matters at all. And using it to argue whether or not he or Einstein "really" invented relativity theory is a bit pointless (angels on the head of a pin, stuff). It just shows that science is a collaborative effort and the idea of the "lone genius" is (largely) an invention of the media. At worst, it just another example of Stigler's law of eponymy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy (which is named after the wrong person). Although Einstein did, later, use the term aether to refer to space-time. (A fact that gets anti-relativity cranks every excited.)

Not really. But that may be because I am, by inclination, a naive realist (I think that what we see around us and what our scientific models describe is more or less reality) but am also sensible enough to realise that is an irrational belief with no basis. So, at the same time that I think our models describe reality, I know they are just models and we can't possibly know anything about reality. I am quite comfortable with the cognitive dissonance required!

My understanding is that his mathematical description is entirely equivalent to Einstein's. The only difference being that he assumed the presence of an (undetectable) aether. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity#Poincaré's_dynamics_of_the_electron

Pretty much any interaction with the environment will count as an observation and destroy the superposition (which is one of the things that makes quantum computing so hard). Not really, no. The thought experiment was proposed to show how silly the idea is. But has since been used in almost the exact opposite sense.

We have moved on a long way since Newton. Both in physics and in the philosophy of science. For example, the fact we are now aware we can have multiple valid theories for the same thing (e.g. Newtonian gravity and GR) with different, overlapping areas of applicability tells us that science is not about discovering The Truth or describing "reality" (whatever that is). It is more about producing useful models that tell us about how the world works. Interpretations may be pretty philosophical. But the science isn't. It is heavily mathematical and data based.

I would be interested to hear what you have to say. If you just want to ask questions, to clarify your understanding, then you can do that in this thread. If you have an alternative theory to the mainstream, then you will need to present that under the Speculations area. Pretty much every amateur (if you'll excuse the word) alternative theory I have seen has been based on one or more fundamental misunderstandings of the underlying science (typically because it has been picked up from popular science articles). But I try to approach each new idea with an open mind!

As SR (and science more generally) is about what we observe, not about "reality", I can't see any difference in those views.

You may find the info here: https://www.gapminder.org/data/ And visualised here: https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#_state_entities/_allpossible_show_$or@_un/_state:true;&_is--global:true;&_is--world/_4region:true;;;;;&data_/_lastModified:1522790311187&lastModified:1522790311187;&chart-type=popbyage

It never was physics really. Just an assumption that turned out to be wrong. (An example of when "obvious common sense" is misleading.)

I remember reading a book on relativity (by Gamow, maybe) when I was very young (maybe about 12, I have no idea) so the ideas have never seemed unintuitive to me!

Malwarebytes is recommended in a lot of places: https://www.malwarebytes.com The free version only supports manual scanning - but that is usually what you want if you want to check that you haven't been infected. Otherwise it could be dodgy hardware (touchpad / mouse, or possibly RAM) or, if you are running Windows, maybe it's time to reinstall the OS.

Good point.

I just came across this in another context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudobulbar_affect (But I see it has already been mentioned)

If tides were not caused by gravity, then one would have to explain how all of Newtonian Gravity and GR are wrong and yet still seem to work.

As you will know by now, as you have done the test, the only agenda is to show how much people's preconceptions shape what they [think they] know about the world. Perhaps I got 77% because I have watched lots of Hans Rosling's videos ...

That has nothing to do with relativity. It sounds more like economics. Assuming that air is stationary with respect to the Earth, then ... IF by "acceleration" you mean you feel the same force from your rocket then you will see your speed relative to the air increase ever more slowly. IF by "acceleration" you mean that your speed increases at 9.8 m/s2 with respect to the air, then your engines will require increasing amounts of energy. This will approach infinite (and your spaceship will be destroyed by the forces) before you reach the speed of light. I don't know! It is really quite simple. I can only assume you are rejecting it because it is counter-intuitive. Also, note that this isn't just theoretical. It has been extensively tested experimental and needs to be taken into account in many practical systems.

Please stop repeating yourself and answer the question. Yes, we know that. Great. Now use some mathematics to show the predictions of your model and compare the results with measurement.