Re: "Logunov and Mestvirishvil disprove "general relativity""

"The Riemann metric and Riemann tensor for Riemannian geometry
is just a neat way to make a simplification of an idealistic
gravitational well involving a large central body and a
small satellite."
All relativity geometries are merely diagrammatic representations of the
math.
"Now, "momentum", is not necessarily what people think it is,
since in kinematics it results _exchange_, so, momentum in
this sense is "conserved in the open", while, as Einstein
says, "it's an inertial system" not "it's a system of momentum"."
Right, so it's math divorced from physical causation. The problem arises
when it is imagined that relativity ever explains anything about
causation. It only pretends to.
"I wouldn't say that the reviewed authors "disproved"
general relativity then - though they did raise many
relevant points with regards to what's either over-
or under-defined in the usual formalisms establishing
the classical connection, that's about it."
Yes, they have their own relativity theory, so their disproof is
incomplete. I don't think there is anything to retain about relativity.
It seems to me to be vacuous nonsense.
p. 8 "Einstein wrote (1949):
'There is a special type of space whose physical structure (field) can
be
presumed to be precisely known on the basis of the special theory of
relativity.
This is an empty space without electromagnetic field and without matter.
It is
completely determined by its metric property:'"
Here, Einstein thinks that space can have a structure rather than
contain a structure, so he is plainly guilty of the reification fallacy.
Space contains fields, or it could include structures, but it cannot
itself have a structure. He elaborates that he is speaking of space
itself having a structure since he describes it as "empty," proving that
he has unambiguously committed the reification fallacy. This is very
unintelligent. This also involves a pretense of explaining causation.