>>11686740I'd argue strongly that the "Citation" would be the entirety of the last century or so of physics, but if you need to get more specific answers, then we can start. By the way, posting two crock LaTeX documents without any indication of who wrote these or where they were published (I assure you they weren't) is a pretty bad indicator on your end. If you actually cared, you'd send these to one of your former university professors who specializes in GR to get the best possible answer but I highly suspect you have no ties to a university let alone their physics department.
Coming from my own area of relative "Expertise" based on my degree then the deformation of the geometry of space is an indisputable based on astronomical observations which extend back as far as the early 1900s using observable deviations of the RA/Dec coordinates of stars near the Sun during Solar eclipses. The same phenomena is observed in cosmological contexts through lensing events near galaxy clusters or high mass objects like neutron stars or black holes. Like, it can't be spelled out any more clearly just based on that. Space deforms in the presence of matter. Whether it's a solar-mass object or an entire collection of galaxies, the effect is observable. Time dilation/Length contraction is supported by things such as the Sagnac effect, the Ives–Stilwell experiment, muon detection events from cosmic ray spallation, I could go on.
Lorentz transformations have been proven countless times by a myriad of different strategies. Space is defined in three spatial coordinates, the fourth one added is time just to distinguish that events occur in a place (Space) and at a time. The tailoring of these concepts together arises out of a necessity for the observed laws of physics to actually produce the results that they do. Literally just spend ten minutes researching actual scientific resources and you'll figure out why you and the rest of the crocks are being retarded.
