And yet, for over a century it has been parroted by academics, students, and laymen alike, as if it is the ultimate theory of the universe, as if it were unassailable.
This is how I disprove General Relativity:
Theorem: Space is not curved.
Conjecture: Space is curved.
Result: Absurdities listed previously.
Proof: By contradiction, conjecture is false, and theorem is true. Space is not curved.
I think Einstein glossed over this aspect simply because the mathematical model worked, and it has been shown to be accurate to the limits of our instruments ability to measure. So the math works, so it's useful. To a point. Then it fails.
But it must be true if the math works, right? Here's the problem with that thinking: Ptolemy's epicyclic model of planetary motion, which placed Earth at the center of the universe, was a mathematical model that accurately predicted the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars. It was actually more accurate than the Heliocentric model, which placed the Sun at the center, with the planets following circular orbits around it. The epicyclic model was widely accepted as true, until Kepler came along and replaced the circular orbits with ellipses in the heliocentric model. THEN, the heliocentric model was more accurate than the epicyclic model, and became widely accepted. Later, Einstein came up with General Relativity, which proved more accurate than Kepler's model. Now, that's what we have. Accuracy of astronomical observations aside, Hollywood has capitalized on the absurdities, raking in mega-bucks from people's General Gullibility.
I think Einstein's General Relativity fails in its underlying assumption that space is curved, simply because it is a convenient simplification. It is not a true description of the underlying mechanism.
Get rid of curved space, and you resolve all the absurdities that result from it. Singularities, evaporating black holes, wormholes, time travel, warp drive, and the black hole information paradox, all go away, and trouble us no further. The challenge is to find a suitable underlying mechanism to explain all the observed phenomena with the same level of accuracy, and to make additional novel predictions, without generating additional absurdities.
I think I've done that. But maybe I'm wrong. Like I said, I wish I was formally educated enough to prove it rigorously either way. University is for young people.