Strange

Well, the coordinates are relative (but not subjective; they can be measured objectively.). Study some physics? No. No one knows. We don't even know if they "started".

It is quite normal that any theory will be changed over time as new evidence is gathered. Why? New evidence has come to light since then. Fine. Don't call it Einstein's theory. No one cares. His role now is of purely historical interest. Just call it the theory of general relativity. Oh, hang on: that is what it is called. That is one of the most idiotic things I have heard on a science forum for a long time. This is one of those rare occasions when you are correct. It seems to be only crackpot pseudoscientists who obsess over the individuals involved in developing a theory. Forget Einstein. He is irrelevant.

Definitely the latter. But I am giving up trying to extract any meaning from your "random" posts. Thank you for finally confirming that. (I have lost track of how many times I have asked.) This is obviously not true. There is nothing more to say. Obviously not.

Obviously, organisms go from being one species to another (or we wouldn't have new species appearing). But usually involves minute, sometimes invisible, changes. Not the appearance of new limbs or new superpowers.

You are taking that quote out of context. Einstein added a constant to his equations to try and "balance" the equation because it described a universe that would expand, but he thought the universe was static. Later it was found that the universe is expanding after all. It is not "forbidden" to add a non-zero cosmological constant. It is not as if Einstein was a prophet. He was wrong about the expanding universe and he was wrong about other things as well. We are constantly discovering new things and changing our theories, or creating new theories. That is what science does. We can't just ignore the evidence. It might be slightly more accurate to say: "most of the universe is not explained by our current theories". This has always been true and probably will always be true. We discover new evidence and find our current theories need to be modified or replaced. And people are looking at all sorts of other possible explanations; including modifying the way gravity works, some sort of quantum fluid that explains both dark energy and dark matter, etc. There are currently multiple lines of evidence suggesting dark matter really is matter. But it could still turn out to be something else. And dark energy is completely unknown: there are many possible explanations being considered but without more information there is no way to know.

The general answer is: it depends. You have rejected every answer given. I don't know what you want. Nor why.

It is a physical dimension, equivalent to the spatial dimensions. You need four coordinates to arrange to meet someone: x, y, z, t; or latitude, longitude, altitude and when.

You might want to read Gerard 't Hooft's comments on this: http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/index.html

You might want to consider whether you are really suited to a career in science ...

While I can see a good argument for teaching the disciplines of philosophy (analytical thinking, logic, etc) I can't see any value at all in metaphysics. It may be a fun exercise (for those who like that sort of thing) but has no practical use. So it would be good to see some argument in favour of it, rather than just an assertion.

In my experience, good engineers are very creative people who often come up with novel and innovative ideas ("thinking out of the box") in order to solve problems. This is almost reasonable (apart from the fact it has nothing to do with applicability of mathematics to the real world). Yet more assertions with no supporting evidence. As you are never able to support these wild claims, I see no reason why anyone should give them any consideration. Some of them could be eliminated by eating more fish. More could be eliminated by painting your face blue and many would never arise if poetry received more emphasis in schools.

Feel free to come back and tell us when you have a working model.

You may be right. That is the same relationship I was using. I was trying to work out what r_0 needs to be, in relation to the length of the arm, in order for the effects to be noticeable (a significant fraction of a second, for example). But I'm not that is the right way to go about it.

I guess this is the thing that people who propose this miss: they seem to think that the object is held up, defying gravity, because of its velocity. It isn't; it is still falling continuously.

But then the time dilation along the length of the arm would be insignificant as well. For the time dilation to be noticeable my back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests you would need a black hole a few metres in diameter, so about a thousand times the mass of the Earth. In this case, the tidal forces would be pretty high.

THIS is what no one has noticed (because it doesn't exist). It's not even as if it is an original idea. It comes up on science forums fairly regularly. (There is another thread concurrent with this one suggesting it.) It wouldn't take long for someone with a bit of mechanical skill to test this. But none of the people who claim it works do this for some reason. So, please, go ahead: build a working model and then come back and tell us the results.

The space-time curvature becomes infinite at the singularity of a black hole. Although whether this can happen in reality or not is an open question.

The trouble is, on the one hand, you don't provide enough information to calculate anything: how big is the black hole, how far are you from it, etc. On the other hand, you appear to be suggesting something that is physically impossible: hovering just outside the event horizon, an area where the difference in time dilation is significant but tidal forces aren't, etc. As such I don't see how anyone can give a sensible answer. Why is this of interest? Given details, someone could calculate the time dilation invoivled, but so what. You would be in free fall so that you wouldn't notice it anyway.

In principle, yes. In practice your arm would be torn off before you noticed.

You should meet Mr Dunning and Mr Kruger.

He just did.

Agreed. It provides some interesting insights.

Any other bits of irrelevant trivia you want to share with us?

Go on then. You tell us, as it is your anti-gravity idea.

That is what the word "prove" means. As you have no way of testing your ideas, they are not worthy of discussion on a science forum. Sadly, like most "out of the box thinkers" you rely on ignorance and imagination, rather than knowledge, evidence or thinking.