There is nothing yet to discard general relativity theory. This is a classical theory, and Newtonian gravity can be recovered from it in a specific limit. Basically this is a theory of gravitational interactions of macroscopic objects which is based on some very simple starting axioms which are quite understandable and agreeable.

It is true that physicists are searching for a quantum version of the general theory of relativity. But quantum gravity is still an unknown theory. This will be a full version of general theory of relativity, from which Einstein's theory will follow in a specific limit.

You may like to read the following book:  Relativiry the special and the general theory, by Albert Einstein. Here the author is Einstein himself, he explains step by step, how general theory was formulated, without using any complicated mathematics at all.

Biswajoy,

Please sentence what is the use of general relativity. For example, design GPS, and so on.

Yin Zhu you seem to think that scientific theories ought to be judged based on their ability to translate into technological applications,this is mistaken.While it is true that solving the world's problems is part of science,this is not the only function of science.Science's main aim is to find out about and understand the universe in its entiretty.For this reason,we cannot simply discard General Relativity because it's of little use to technology.The theory has  wealth of information about our universe that researchers are still trying to unpack to this day.

Carringtone, in my understanding, that science is different from philosophy is that science need be experimentally confirmed while philosophy is to "find out about and understand the universe in its entirety".

Yin, I also wonder what is the use of GRT. Moreover, the gravitational redshift is a general concept related to energetic considerations and can be integrated to any gravity theory. It is no part of the GR theory as such.

The bending of light is a fact that is also found by applying the Maxwell analogy of electromagnetism to gravity (= gravitomagnetism). So is the advance of Mercury's perihelion.

However, with gravitomagnetism, a strong tool is available to describe gravity a very concrete way, and many applications are available for galaxies, spinning stars, the asteroid belt and so on.

General relativity is useful, because it describes nature and other descriptions can be understood as approximations thereof. That's all there is to it. And technical results don't depend on social approval, so it's useful to cite technical papers, not social media. Incidentally, there isn't any time dilation in Newtonian mechanics in general and Newtonian gravity in particular-so there isn't any ``Newtonian gravitational time effect''.  That the gravitational acceleration isn't uniform on Earth isn't relevant, because the effect due to general relativity is what is found, beyond the nonuniformity of the acceleration.

 Stam,

there isn't any ``Newtonian gravitational time effect''.

Maybe, this is a complicated problem. For example, Newtonian gravitational force has a big effect on atomic clock. Then, how to assess the Hafele-keating experiment in it this effect has not been considered. And, in the Einstein's field quations, the gravitational time dilation is a factor. As using  Einstein's field quations into description of a motion of a celestial body, the time need be measured. In this case, can the Newtonian gravitational effect on an atomic clock be neglected?

so it's useful to cite technical papers, not social media

A problem no matter how it come from, if it is significant, it need be considered.

 Thierry,

Thank you for your answer.

While the variations of  the Earth's  gravitational field in the Newtonian approximation  have an effect on the apparatus of the clock, they  have negligible effect on the mechanism of the clock-Newtonian gravity  doesn't affect the transitions between atomic levels.  The gravitational time dilation is an inevitable consequence of the solutions of Einsteins's equations, it doesn't make sense in the Newtonian limit and the only question is, whether the mechanism of an atomic clock is or isn't sensitive to the physical effects described by the Einstein equations. For it should be kept in mind that Einstein's equations provide a redundant description of gravitational phenomena and that only effects that can be shown to be invariant under general coordinate transformations are relevant. 

Stam, thank you for your patient answer.

The effect of newtonian gravity on an atomic is not negligible. It is much much biger than the Einstein's gravitational time dilation. But, in the Hafele-keating experiments, this effect has never been measured.

The only way Newtonian gravity can affect atomic transitions is by effects that break Lorentz invariance explicitly. Other effects are negligible. The reason is that the gravitational field, in the Newtonian approximation is a scalar field and a scalar only couples to the trace of the energy-momentum tensor of the matter+radiation field. The energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field is traceless-therefore doesn't contribute-light isn't bent in the Newtonian approximation. The coupling of the scalar with the energy-momentum tensor of atoms is ridiculously small: E/E_Planck, where E is the energy of the transition, which is orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck scale. That's why the effect of Newtonian gravity on the process itself is negligible. 

Stam, your understanding about Newtonian gravity acting on an atomic clock is wrong. Please see Ref.[2] of this Question.

And, according to current theory of gravity, at low speed and weak field limit, Newtonian gravity is a good approxmate to Einstein's curved space. So, if Einstein's curved is used, Newtonian gravity need not be used. And vice versa. They cannot be used at the same time for same object.

Stam, the supposed need of Lorentz invariance is a violation of reality and it is the highway to try to force all physics into the special relativity trap.

If the Lorentz invariance were true, the twin paradox would allow the rocket to leave the Earth, but also the Earth leaving the rocket. So, the time on Earth is becoming slower too.

Then you will say: No, because we *know* that the Earth is orbiting etc etc...

That is exactly the thing. Only the Newtonian considerations wrt to velocity are valid, not the special relativity's.

Hence, the Lorentz transformations must be analysed with *real* physics, and then, it is found that the Lorentz transformations from frame 1 to 2 are different from these from frame 2 to 1, depending from which one is really moving and which one is really standing still.

By using electromagnetism, Prof Oleg Jefimenko calculated the effect from a moving frame 1, seen by the still frame 2 and vice versa, due to the retardation of the fields by the speed of light. He came to the exact Lorentz transformations. However, the magnetic field is created by the frame 1 only. This results in an asymmetry of the Lorentz transformations of both systems.

The same happens with gravity. The velocity must be defined wrt the (Newtonian) gravity fields of the system. For the Sun and one planet it is simple, for N body systems it's a lot of work, but everything can be added linearily, and small masses and velocities neglected.

Every moving mass induces a magnetic-like field, which acts upon every other moving mass. A spinning star even acts upon itself: the total mass minus one particle is moving, creates a magnetic-like field, and acts upon the one remaining moving particle. And every single particle gets this induction from all the other particles of the star. The result is a Lorentz-like force that acts against falling apart in the equatorial region!

 Thierry,

Thank you for your detailed comments. Some of your arguements are strong. A bigger problem is that what is the use of Einstein's relative spacetime. Just as you presented here, as soon as we used the relative spacetime to study a actual problem, we shall find the questions in relative spacetime.