The four Nobel Awarded cases are suggested for this discussion. Please add your voice and opinion on the following considerations or possible new ones:

Einstein’s theories of relativity and its derivatives are being “proved” for more than hundred years, involving enormous cost of intellectual, technological, natural and financial resources of humanity, artificially involving hundreds of scientists around the world as a career-building enterprise, seeking consensus. All profound scientific theories of the past history, including classical mechanics, thermodynamics, Maxwell’s electromagnetism, Darwin’s theory of evolution, even atomic theory, never needed any “proof”; as those arose from practical activities or accidental discoveries and are being proved millions of times a day through the social/historical practice and technologies of men.

The question is, why so many and never-ending “proofs” (more are in the offing) are necessary for one axiomatic and mainly mathematically derived theory? It seems that these “proofs” are subjectively motivated and most probably contrived; and arises from lingering doubt about the scientific merit of this theory; which is used as the marvel of official science and as the ruling idea of modern society, bolstering theology. The “Big Bang” theory itself, the most important derivative of Einstein’s General Relativity (GR) was adopted in a conference at the Vatican, which excluded the most prominent astrophysicists and the astronomers of the time, as the following quote from Geoffrey Burbidge would testify: “By 1982, when a conference on cosmology was held at the Vatican, a new approach was taken. The radicals around, such as F. Hoyle, V. Ambartsuminan and this speaker (to mention a few) were not even invited. The conference was confined completely to Big Bang cosmology and its proponents. In fact in the introduction to the published volume of the proceedings of the meeting (Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1982) it was emphasized that only believers (in the Big Bang) were present; and that there was clearly a deliberate decision of the organizers”: G Burbidge, In “The Universe at Large: Key Issues in Astronomy and Cosmology.

1. Black Hole: 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics Awarded to 3 Scientists for Work on Black Holes. The prize was awarded half to Roger Penrose for showing how black holes could form and half to Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez for discovering a supermassive object at the Milky Way's center.

Albert Einstein in published article dismissed the possibility of “Black Hole” formation even in theory: "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." Albert Einstein. A. Einstein, The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8dd0/dfafef0c53c428fdc3b58f8099aafcf7d089.pdf

2. Gravitational Waves: The 2017 Nobel Foundation awarded half of the million-dollar prize to Weiss, and the other half to Barish and Thorne, “for decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves.”

The intended aim of this “discovery” of the Gravitational Waves (GWs) was to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity (GR). In a 1936 manuscript (“Do gravitational waves exist?”) submitted to the Physical Review, Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen famously claimed that gravitational waves do not exist. That paper was rejected for publication, but Einstein did not change his mind on the possibility of GWs until his death in 1955. Einstein in a letter to his friend Max Born, wrote: “Together with a young collaborator, I arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves do not exist, though they had been assumed a certainty to the first approximation.” https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/even-einstein-doubted-his-own-gravitational-waves

Arthur Eddington, who promoted Einstein’s GR from the start, had already dismissed the reality of GWs in 1922 as: “the only speed of propagation relevant to them is “the speed of thought”; in a lengthy publication in: “The Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character. “The Propagation of Gravitational Waves”, By A.S. Eddington, F.R.S. (Received October 11, 1922)

“The problem of the propagation of disturbance of the gravitational field was investigated by Einstein in 1916 and again in 1918*. It has usually been inferred from his discussion that a change in the distribution of matter produces gravitational effects which are propagated with the speed of light; but I think that Einstein really left the question of the speed of propagation rather indefinite. His analysis shows how the co-ordinates must be chosen if it is desired to represent the gravitational potentials as propagated with the speed of light; but there is nothing to indicate that the speed of light appears in the problem, except as the result of this arbitrary choice.

So far as I know, the propagation of the absolute physical condition – the altered curvature of space-time –- has not hitherto been discussed. Weyl** has classified plane GWs into three types, viz.: (1) longitudinal – longitudinal; longitudinal- transverse; (3) transverse- transverse. The present investigation leads to the conclusion that transverse- transverse waves are propagated with the speed of light in all systems of co-ordinates. Waves of the first and second types have no fixed velocity – a result which rouses suspicion as to their objective existence. Einstein had also become suspicious of these waves (in so far as they occur in his special co=ordinate-system) for another reason, because he found that they convey no energy.

*‘Berlin Sitzungsberichte,’ p. 688 (1916); p. 154 (1918)

** ‘Raum, Zeit, Materie,’ 4th edition, p. 228; English edition, p. 252

The Propagation of Gravitational Waves. p269

They are not objective, and (like absolute velocity) are not detectable by any conceivable experiment. They are merely sinuosities in the co-ordinate-system, and the only speed of propagation relevant to them is “the speed of thought”.

3. Accelerated Expansion of the universe: The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded today to Saul Perlmutter at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, Brian Schmidt at the Australian National Lab and Adam Reiss at Johns Hopkins University for their discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe.

“Expanding or accelerated expansion” of the universe is assumed on the basis of faulty and contrived assignments of redshift of the galaxies and the so-called Hubble’s Law; which was contested by the two greatest astronomer/astrophysicists of 20thcentury, namely Halton C. Arp and Hubble himself as the following quote would show: "… if redshift are not primarily due to velocity shift … there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature … and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principles of nature that is still unknown to us today … whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results." ("Effects of Red Shifts on the Distribution of Nebulae" by E. Hubble, Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936)

A recent publication in the journal Nature contested this Nobel Awarded claim:

Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae

J. T. Nielsen, A. Guffanti & S. Sarkar , https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35596

4. Big Bang Creation: The 2006 Nobel prize for physics was awarded to John Mather and George Smoot for their contribution to the big bang theory of the origin of the universe. The pair were honoured for “their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation”, the jury said. George Smoot ascribed the Cosmic Microweb Background Radiation (CMBR) as the “Face of God”, who is believed to have created the universe through a “Big Bang”, proposed by the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître. Per Carlson, the Chairman of Nobel Physics Committee said, according to press reports that “they have not proven the Big Bang theory, but they give it very strong support”.

A rebuttal of this claim by Mather and Smoot have been published: “Ambartsumian, Arp and the

Breeding Galaxies”: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

Astronomer and astrophysicist Halton Arp, one of the most famous opponents of the Big Bang theory had this to say in a personal communication in reference to this Nobel Award, “The intergalactic medium has to have some temperature. Eddington calculated about 2.7 deg. in 1926. In the 1940’s Max Born calculated 2.7 deg. on the basis of tired light. Gamow calculated 50 deg. before Pezias and Wilson measured 2.73 deg. But a Canadian astronomer, McKellar had already measured it from the excitation of the inter-stellar CN molecule. The ultimate irony is that it is a primary reference frame which violates Einstein’s assumption about no preferred reference frames.”

Now, after many years, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is raising big question about the “Big Bang” theory: ‘If we can truly believe what we are seeing, is it time to reappraise our understanding of the dawn of time? “We're peering into the unknown”, Mason says’: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/jwsts-first-glimpses-of-early-galaxies-could-break-cosmology/