I’m only claiming the veracity of GR as to its primary purpose: to explain how gravitation works; via the curvature of Spacetime. Evidence can be seen in Mercury’s precession (this month is the centennial of Eddington’s experiment), gravitational lensing etc. If GPS did not take GR into account it would be about 7 miles off.
Spacetime is a nonsense concept with no existence in physical reality. This sleight-of-hand trick trying to treat time as a spatial dimension is just a small part of the reasons why GR should be rejected.
You can’t prove curved spacetime of course, it’s inherently unfalsifiable.
GR is just a math trick that seemed to work and got way out of hand. Spacetime isn’t a thing, and even if it were the idea of curving it would be semantically barren. What does it even mean for spacetime to be curved?
You > I’m only claiming the veracity of GR as to its primary purpose: to explain how gravitation works
But it doesn’t exactly explain how gravitation works, does it? It doesn’t even claim to - it only claims to be a good explanation of its effects.
Regardless, the big picture problem with GR is the only-tool-is-a-hammer problem. There seems to be this dying need to explain everything in the universe using gravity and gravity alone, when gravity is the weakest force that we know by a mind-boggling number of orders of magnitude.
IMO the evidence seems pretty solid that the primary driver of action in the universe is electromagnetism, not gravity. We exist in a living, electric universe, not a dead gravitic one.