Relativity is wrong...

Well it's very simple. General Relativity predicts what the periapsis precessions should be and the value it predicts is the exact value observed. You accept one experiment, which when repeated with better equipment by others (Braxmaier et al., (2002)) gave results in support of relativity. Yet you don't accept the several million (yes, million) experiments which support relativity?Edited by Admin, : Fix grammar at beginning of last para.

Thank you Onifire for the links.In message 15 Smooth Operator writes: Yes, but the main discussion of the paper is one experiment. It's the only one of interest since it is more up to date than the others and the only with a chance at being statistically significant. The others are almost just there for historical flavour.
However even this "best" experiment is discounted. See the links provided Onifire, who has been kind enough to highlight the points most relevant to the discussion.

You are asking how an experiment which matches a prediction of relativity is significant for relativity?
I really don't know what to say.I also see that you are advocating geocentrism and will first require proof that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Will we be asked next for evidence that grass is in fact green?

I will focus on this because it is simply a mathematical statement. That is that black holes and cosmic expansion do not follow from General Relativity. This is provably incorrect. Hawking and Penrose published a series of papers in the 1970s containing theorems which showed in a wide variety of situations singularities are a generic feature, for example in realistic gravitational collapse and in cosmological models. In fact in a gigantic monograph, due to Demetrios Christodoulou, it was recently shown (2008) that singularities will form in completely realistic situations with no assumptions.In other words black holes are completely consistent with General Relativity and anybody who says otherwise can mathematically be shown to be talking a load of arse.

Let me provide some context for anybody who may be reading. The Schwarzschild solution or Schwarzschild metric is a solution of Einstein's field equations. Basically it describes what spacetime should look like outside of a perfectly spherical body due to the mass of the body curving spacetime.
A good example would be the Sun, it's roughly a sphere so spacetime outside it looks roughly like the Schwarzschild solution. Then you can use the Schwarzschild solution to obtain the perihelion of Mercury and other basic effects in General Relativity. However if the body is small enough the Schwarzschild solution will have a region from which nothing can escape, which is a black hole. The Scharzschild solution as found in textbooks most certainly describes a black hole, it's actually an exercise for undergraduates to show this in some GR courses. Schwarzschild himself never claimed it did because the poor lad died a few weeks after writing the paper in a German trench in WWI. However this is largely irrelevant since it can be easily shown that it does in fact describe a black hole.Now one could argue that perhaps black holes are an artifact of the perfect spherical symmetry of the Schwarzschild solution, but the theorems of Hawking and Penrose show this is not the case and other more generic solutions also contain black holes.
So black holes are in fact a consequence of General Relativity. There isn't any debate about that since it can be proved to be the case. The fact that it is expanding does not mean it is not infinite. As a simple counterexample imagine an infinite cosmos where distance between things doubles every second. (This is not a genuine model so do not consider it as such) I do not understand how relative motion implies that there are no bounds. Could you explain? See above. Except for the fact that I can solve Einstein's equations and obtain a solution describing a universe with a Big Bang, demonstrating that they are in fact compatible.

It doesn't matter what Schwarzschild talked about, it doesn't matter what somebody says in an introduction to their translation of Schwarzschild's papers, it doesn't matter what you think Hilbert did or didn't do, because it is a mathematical fact (provable by a final year undergraduate) that the Schwarzschild solution contains a black hole. In fact I could prove it right now if you want or link you to several derivations.I have taken a look at Stephen Crothers website (as the wonderful onifire suggested ) and I must say I am not even remotely convinced this person understands the differential geometry required to use General Relativity, let alone actually criticise the mathematics of it. Take for example his Ric=0 page where he says Ric=0 forbids masses and violates special relativity and the equivalence principle. He doesn't seem to understand that the equivalence principle simply means that any spacetime should look like Minkowski spacetime near a point.* Instead he talks about it as some kind statement concerning masses and energy.*For anybody interested this statement means that any spacetime which is a solution to Einstein's equations should, in a small neighbourhood around any point, look like Minkowski spacetime, which is the spacetime used for special relativity.

It has been known in some way since Aristarchus that the Sun is larger than the Earth. You can prove it by using no more than high school geometry and watching the moon. Plus we've sent actual probes, over twenty, to the Sun.
How do you think the Sun might be smaller than the Earth?

So? Hawking and Penrose have a theorem proving he is wrong. He can write about it from here until the end of time and it will not make a lick of difference. It would be like writing "On the Falsity of 1+1=2, Volumes 1-36" Well of course in the vacuum region there is no mass. It is the non-vacuum region which supplies the mass, the Schwarzschild solution describes the region outside the mass. Can you reference a textbook or article where this is being done, rather than some guy who says it is being done?

First of all, do you accept that the satellite's observations of the rate of change of the size of the Sun might provide a basis for determining how large it is.
If not I will need a common basis to work off, which is measuring the distance to the moon. Do you find reflecting a laser of the moon an acceptable way of measuring how far away it is? How about landing a satellite on it? One simple method is by observing the rate of change of size as the satellites approach. Also the Sun as been approached both along its equator and above its equator and these give consistent estimates of its size. Hawking and Penrose prove the theorem rigorously, so they simply cannot be wrong. If you cannot point out where you believe they are in error, could you give reasons as to why you believe Crothers is on to something? This is not true, they wrote the main work together and reference previous papers whose work they draw on. This is standard practice as scientific work is rarely created out of the blue. Plus even if it was true, it doesn't effect the argument as independently formulated in textbooks. The theorems do not mention the Schwarszschild solution if you look at them. They only make statements about the formation of black holes in geometric theories of gravity (ones which describe gravity as the curvature of spacetime) like General Relativity. If you impose that condition everywhere. Which isn't necessary to show the formation of black holes. Basically all you need is Ric = 0 to hold in a large enough region.If anybody wants to get an idea of the issues involved here, check out these great lectures:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409195Edited by Son Goku, : Original contained a missing reference and the reference is in fact not available to general public. Included a reference that is.