>>12881949>Than where was it mathematically shown to be incorrect?People do not write papers in response to textbooks.
>And mathematically the existence contradicts his theory.And yet none of the other people who worked on this and developed the equations came to the same conclusion. Can you cite me Levi-Civita responding to Eddington or Einstein and Rosen, explaining why they are wrong? No. But you reject these papers anyway.
>Irrelevant. Either it’s disproven or it doesn’t matter. Not irrelevant. In 100 years there has been hundreds of papers on GWs, from Feynman to Hulse and Taylor. Just because someone didn't write a specific rebuttal does not mean a disproof doesn't exist in the vast literature.
>The propositions and possible flaws in other papers are irrelevant. Proof by example. People are fallible, what you're citing wasn't even in a peer reviewed journal. The only reason you cite this paper is because it agrees with your prejudice, it's cherry-picking. You ignore 100 years of physics, and crown Levi-Civita your champion.
>Did you ever get a lecture regarding advanced theoretical physics they always tell you it’s just mathematical formalisms."no physical meaning". If Levi-Civita was correct there would be no waves, and there would be no LIGO/VIRGO detections. Physics is empirical.
