The God:
ED,
Maths may yield absurdities like time travel or singularity, that does not mean that qualitative verbose argument can take place of maths.
In maths there are Axioms. In physics there are Postulates. All arguments and claims etc that follows from them must be logically and physically consistent all the way back to those starting premises. If the logic and the physics basis
of those starting premises is wrong, then no amount of following the indicated maths and models following from them can discern the inconsistency.
Hence the need to start examining the underlying premises; which Q-reeus's OP scenario (based as it is just on the underlying Geometry and Motions implicit without any prior assumptions) is doing regardless of any maths which may be inadequate for that purpose.
Do you understand that now? Q-reeus cannot be expected to, nor should anyone have reason to demand, that he provide the maths which may itself be compromised from the starting premises which he is challenging logically and physically even before the maths arguments and claims are started.
That is why I see Q-reeus's OP challenge and method as the only way to actually logically and physically scrutinize the starting premises themselves; which seems at this stage the only way to independently and objectively address the problem that can resolve the issue one way or the other
outside the maths construct that created the problem.
If we remain inside that maths, we come up against Gödel 's Incompleteness Theorem (a self-referential Catch-22; ie, no further maths which is based on the faulty premises logical and physical assumptions can prove or disprove the premises for that maths construct).
Hence why those premises must themselves be scrutinized for logical and/or physical invalidity without any reference to the maths based on them.
I trust you now understand why your and other's continuing insistence to "provide the maths" is totally unhelpful and distracting from the OP purpose and approach by Q-reeus.
It is apparent from 300 odd posts that debunking Feynman proposition will not debunk GR. Debunking the distinct maths associated with GR GW will do. Q-reeus is asking others to find fault with his argument without pin pointing where the fault is in GW derivation. Go global sounds more like a business slogan. Go global, leave local makes no sense mathwmatically unless you define both the systems and establish that from global perspective transformation to local perspective will invalidate GR GW. He is not doing it.
Why do you keep insisting that the OP is about debunking GR? As I read Q-reeus's OP it is about debunking the claims that the
extrapolations of GR maths can be used to support claims that gravitational waves are possible as claimed.
There is a difference. While GR may be correct, the extrapolation of GR maths to somehow claim that the alleged Gravitational Waves detected are those as described by the extrapolated GR maths, is what is being tested logically and physically by scrutinizing the initial premises that may become invalid when such extrapolations are done; and maybe finding that such claims made based on said extrapolated maths, and consequential models, may be faulty if the premises do not support such an extrapolation.
I trust you now will separate the GR validity question from the GR maths extrapolation question which, as far as I can tell, is the actual issue Q-reeus's OP is actually addressing.
Q-reeus has kind of taken hostile approach towards any opposition, that will not serve his purpose. I will be the first man to cheer him if he can falsify GR because it will be very soon, but with admissible framework. His point is very simple, its understood, but it will remain in limbo unless he comes with proper maths. Opposition is not because people have not understood him, opposition is because he is not able make a formal mathematucally expressible statement.
You appear to be confused as to his purpose; perhaps because you have a purpose of debunking GR itself? If so, you appear to be attributing and overlaying your own purposes and intents on Q-reeus's OP. This may explain your own demands and hopes, but does in no way oblige Q-reeus and his OP to cater to your own purposes and intents. Maybe the fact that you seem determined to misread and/or misrepresent and/or 'nudge' his OP for your own reasons, is why he has lost patience with your comments and demands?
That is just my own observation as to why he may be reacting to you as he is. Maybe if you separated the debunking GR aspect (your own aim) from the testing the extrapolated claims from GR maths (his aim via his OP challenge as posed), then maybe you will not be giving him any further cause to object to your posts in this thread in future.
Take for example, your referred twin paradox, if you argue it taking refuge in words then it is there and a person can claim that SR is bad based on his argument, but put it on paper with maths and the paradox goes. So maths is crucial.
It seems you are missing my point. It was the SR maths (sans logical and physical tests of the purely maths relativity construct itself) that, when extrapolated to its internal logics conclusion, arrived at a seeming paradox. Do you understand this point? If so, then you will now understand when I point out that only scrutiny based on
external logic and physics factors would resolve that there is no real paradox except in the SR maths itself sans external checks. No SR maths can "be provided" to prove consistency above and beyond that of and within the SR maths construct itself
(again, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem necessitated that the GR factors of acceleration and deceleration had to be brought into the SR construct in order to make sense of the aging difference which could not have been explained within the SR maths itself...hence the seeming paradox
until non-SR scrutiny and logic and physics was brought to bear).
Do you now understand why your posts and demands and advice have been off the mark and may have caused Q-reeus to react as he has? If so, I trust you now will deal with Q-reeus on the terms he and his OP have posed for actually scrutinizing the whole basis for the extrapolated maths claims supposedly supporting GWs as claimed. These have been my honest and objective comments and understandings of Q-reeus's OP and others' comments as I have read them. Best.
Let me remind you again. This is a public science forum, and as such will most certainly not resolve anything other then a boost to personal egos etc.