Strange

And GR is falsifiable. That is why all the tests have been done: to try and falsify it. Theories are falsified, not experiments. The theory (which does not mention a medium) says "gravity behave like this". Experiments test whether gravity does behave like that. (If it didn't the theory would be falsified.) It does. Therefore the theory with no medium is accurate. Now, if you want to demonstrate that your hypothesis about the necessity for a medium is correct, then you need to produce an equally accurate mathematical model that DOES include the medium and show what results it produces. Your hypothesis can then be tested (i.e. is falsifiable). As it is, your vague opinions are not falsifiable and therefore not science.

That is not how science works. If you can show that the "stuff" will have a measurable effect, THEN we can do an experiment to test your idea. As it is, all you have are empty, meaningless claims. As it is, the theory without using the stuff works fine. Therefore the stuff is not part of the theory. If it were missing from the theory as you suggest, then the theory would not work. The maths is simply a description of reality, not something separate from it. It uses the word mediate in reference to bosons. Bosons are the particles that mediate forces. If gravity can be quantised then the (hypothetical) particle that mediates gravity would be the graviton. BUT ... these virtual particles that mediate forces are not a medium. It is not even clear that they exist. They are just a mathematical tool for solving problems.

Liar. (That is a hypothesis based on the evidence. It can be falsified by the OP showing us his mathematical model.)

Because we have a theory that does not use any of that stuff as a medium. The theory works exceedingly well, even predicting the gravitational waves that were recently detected. You are, of course, welcome to come up with an equally detailed and accurate theory that does include that material as a medium of transmission. Taking into account, for example, the hugely varying composition, density, temperature and velocity of that medium in different places and how that would affect the force of gravity and the transmission of gravitational waves (or, more to the point, why these things don't have any effect). But after 6 weeks, 31 pages and 615 posts with zero progress towards that, I don't imagine it is ever going to happen. You will continue stumbling around in your closed-minded and unimaginative approach ("but I like my old ideas; why should I consider anything new that someone more creative than me came up with").

The trouble with that is the distribution of dark matter required does not match that of matter that can form stars, planets, etc.

And so, as swansont points out, you will determine the kinetic energy of all objects to be zero, because that is what it is in their own frame of reference. That makes it pretty meaningless.

Be careful, here. The matter that is distributed in space (whether gases in the intergalactic medium or the arms of the LIGO detector) are perturbed by the presence of gravitational waves. But they are not necessary, as a medium, for the propagation of those waves. Agreed. Many people (including very respectable scientists) have used the term as a metaphor to describe something that pervades the universe - space-time, dark energy, electromagnetic fields, etc. But this can just lead to confusion when people associate it with the classical aether. It is best avoided altogether.

Moderation in all things. Including moderation.

Whereas, the "distribution of matter" (small or large) is what gets waved (by the changes in space-time).

Yes. When you measure the length, you are just measuring one dimension (of three). You are not looking at it as a 4D object. If that were true, you would already be (intuitively) aware of the invariant quantities. As it is, you are making up an answer that satisfies you (even though it is not useful, in any scientific sense).

As we have had another one of those crazy types who insist that science is a cult with arrogant high priests, etc. here is an excellently argued refutation of that sort of ignorant, closed-minded nonsense: https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/08/01/are-scientists-arrogant-close-minded-and-dismissive/

Note that I didn't say that what we observer in the objects own frame is distorted (and I put your word "distorted" in quotes). What I said was that it is "just as distorted" as any other frame of reference. They are all equally valid. They are all equally accurate. They are all equally correct. They are none of them distorted. As swansont has repeatedly pointed out, the same laws of physics apply in all frames (which is why we ended up with this model in the first place). That just makes things unnecessarily complicated.

The ruler that you measure (and that someone else measures differently) is a 3D projection. Which is why you all get different results. (See Markus's tincan analogy if you can't see that.) The "true" (invariant) view of the ruler is the one described by GR. Not your preferred frame.

That single thing is not what you claim it is though - i.e. not one of the arbitrary "distorted" views. The "single reality" is the description that is invariant for all observers (as you have been told multiple times). There is no such thing. If you stopped making up nonsense, and listened to the explanations you are being given, then you might be able to make sense of it.

That is NOT an example of scientific modelling. It is a dumbed down, visual representation of a high-level and highly inaccurate summary of a model. At best. The model will consist of a large number of complex equations describing, among other things: the concentrations of the various gases the sources of energy the rate at which the components move (dependent on concentration, temperature, density, wind speeds, moisture levels, etc) how long they are stable for what happens to them over time what they react with what effect they have on the absorption and reflection of sunlight over time what effect ultraviolet radiation has on them how they affect cloud formation how they are absorbed in water how that depends on temperature and salinity the effects of ocean current the effects of trees, phytoplankton and other plant life the amount that different industries, including farming, contribute and on and on and on Getting results from a model like this takes hours of supercomputer time. By comparison, your wild guesses are worthless.

No doubt Enthalpy will be suggesting the use of robots for bomb disposal next. Or perhaps even in manufacturing. I''m sure there is no end of novel uses for them that the world is just waiting for him to disclose.

You have replaced one insubstantial thing which pervades all of space (the electromagnetic field) with another insubstantial and hypothetical thing that might pervade all of space (dark energy). The problem is we know a LOT about the electromagnetic field. We can describe it precisely. We can measure it. We have technology that uses it. On the other hand, we know almost nothing about dark energy. We don't even know for sure if it exists. We can't measure it. (It is also, I think, very tiny. Like 1 nanojoule per cubic metre.) I'm not sure that counts as progress.

It is the perfect one-time pad! Er, as long as no one says that in public ...

How can it be when it is really good evidence for a scientific theory that doesn't require a medium. Your quasi-religious belief is irrelevant to science. So you are wrong. <shrug> In which case you need to provide an accurate (mathematical) mode that includes this medium and produces all the same results as GR.

And, of course, you are the only person on the planet who knows what products Liebherr manufactures.

Without knowing what else interests you, it is hard to say but maybe: journalism, sales, teaching, charity work, marketing. Or go into a completely different field. Many of the skills you learn in education (research, thesis writing, etc) are transferable.

It depends on your definition of "nothing". Is the distance between New York and Rome "nothing:? Is the time taken to make that journey "nothing"? Are lines of latitude and longitude "nothing"?

Billions of dark matter particles (and neutrinos) fly through and past you without having any noticeable effect. The curvature of space-time holds you in your chair, keeps the moon in orbit, and creates the structure of galaxies. I know which one I consider more substantial.

I'm sure they will be all over it, checking that their mathematical models match up. They might also find this handy summary of the standard model helpful: http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation

Remember the point of the fable? People said there were clothes when there weren't any. So it looks like science is playing the role of the child and pointing out that there are no clothes. And you are playing the part of the deluded courtiers, insisting there must be. (Because the King wouldn't go out naked. That would be 'craziness'.) Outside of galaxies, there is relatively little dark matter. And yet gravity, and gravitational waves, behave exactly the same there as in galaxies.