[Kryptid]

Einstein's GR includes Newton. Einstein's GR is an extension of Newton (a modification if u like). Kill Newton & Einstein dies.

That makes absolutely no sense when you consider that Newton's equations and Einstein's equations give different answers to queries about things like kinetic energy and gravitational lensing. Newton being wrong then obviously does not make Einstein wrong.

Or praps u dont care if Newton dies.  Praps u are confident that Einsteinian relativity can simply detach from Newton's corpse & simply suck onto any passing basic body of theory while that body is alive, until that theory is itself killed off or something, at which time ER can just do it all again, getting bigger all the time, nothing to see here, hey everyone look over there its a blackhole.

Relativity is a theory unto itself. It makes its own predictions. It doesn't "care" what other theories do or do not exist.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Einstein's GR includes Newton. Einstein's GR is an extension of Newton (a modification if u like). Kill Newton & Einstein dies.

That makes absolutely no sense when you consider that Newton's equations and Einstein's equations give different answers to queries about things like kinetic energy and gravitational lensing. Newton being wrong then obviously does not make Einstein wrong.

Or praps u dont care if Newton dies.  Praps u are confident that Einsteinian relativity can simply detach from Newton's corpse & simply suck onto any passing basic body of theory while that body is alive, until that theory is itself killed off or something, at which time ER can just do it all again, getting bigger all the time, nothing to see here, hey everyone look over there its a blackhole.

Relativity is a theory unto itself. It makes its own predictions. It doesn't "care" what other theories do or do not exist.

Good, then GR gives a 1/R for a spiral galaxy, no dark matter needed.

[Kryptid]

Good, then GR gives a 1/R for a spiral galaxy

If it did, then it would have been falsified long ago as it would not even match the behavior of gravity in our Solar System.

[Bored chemist]

I dont remember Pollack mentioning EZ next to glass.

Nobody said he had.
But you did try to pretend that "polywater" was real while science shows that it's not.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

I dont remember Pollack mentioning EZ next to glass.

Nobody said he had. But you did try to pretend that "polywater" was real while science shows that it's not.

I have not looked into the history of polywater, but i daresay that what they found was EZ water.

[Bored chemist]

I dont remember Pollack mentioning EZ next to glass.

Nobody said he had. But you did try to pretend that "polywater" was real while science shows that it's not.

I have not looked into the history of polywater, but i daresay that what they found was EZ water.

You may well be right, in the sense that neither exists.
If you had looked into it, you would have found that it's not real.
And then you might have recognised that you shouldn't rely on a post that mentions it 6 times as "evidence" for your ideas.

You are building on foundations that don't exist.