Quantum Mechanics says that gravity is mediated by a sub-atomic particle known as the graviton. That should have been taught to you in school, in your studies for your physics degree. Why are you asking me?
GR cannot predict the position of the planets, and is not used: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns
GR cannot describe the movement and motion of the galaxies: https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies
GR cannot seem to do anything of importance.
What good is it? It GR a gravitational lensing simulator?
Gravitational Lensing was known about long before Einstein ever published his theory. How do we know that he didn't tailor his theory to predict one of the very few things it asserts to predict?
"Quantum Mechanics says that gravity is mediated by a sub-atomic particle known as the graviton. That should have been taught to you in school, in your studies for your physics degree. Why are you asking me?"
Well, I am asking you because the graviton is a hypothetical particle which presumably mediates the force of gravity at a quantum scale, but has never been observed. Since you adhere to the zetetic school of thought, why do you reference a hypothetical particle without empirical support? No physicist presumes its existence, but we instead search for clues to the possibility. It is as though you choose not to distinguish between theoretical definition and empirical verification. I would imagine a zetetic to be superb at such distinctions. But alas...
"GR cannot predict the position of the planets, and is not used:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_PatternsGR cannot describe the movement and motion of the galaxies:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_GalaxiesGR cannot seem to do anything of importance.
What good is it? It GR a gravitational lensing simulator?"
Well, it looks like I have struck a chord. GR does indeed predict the positions of planets, and is used to describe the precession of Mercury, which is the only planet to experience GR effects that are measurable by theory. So I really do not understand what you are trying to say. It is as though you have not bothered to understand GR at all. You DO understand how GR affects planets, yes?
The links you cite point towards the issue of dark energy. In doing this, you have used an argument of ignorance: namely, that the lack of current theories to completely atone for galactic dynamics is somehow evidence for FE theory.
It is not. A lack of evidence does not constitute evidence for the contrary. This is basic logic.
You fail to recognize that the entire structure which posits this "hole" in the theory is based in physics. In essence, what you are saying is:
1) Your theory describes
most phemonema
2) There is a hole in your theory
3) Your theory is best positioned to answer that hole, as it has done many times in the past, reconciling the issue
4) But instead, believe my theory which has no empirical support.
Is it any wonder why you do not publish?