Friends, as you know, I am quite critical of the theory of Relativity and even more so of Quantum Mechanics.
For this reason I would like to make a small summary of the pros and cons that I have about them.
* First of all, I want to make the observation that I accept that possibly I am wrong in my judgments and conclusions, but I believe that I have an obligation to present my points of view, even if this produces a multitude of criticisms and disqualifications.
And for those who criticize and severely disqualify me I would like to make a reflection:
If after many years of reviewing these theories (relativistic and quantum) and having come to the conclusion that they are wrong (either consciously or unconsciously) and with a lot of manipulation: What do I do; Do I give my views and face criticism, or do I not do so as not to harm the feelings of his followers?
Well, I think that the healthy and correct thing is to present my points of view.

For Einstein and his Relativity a point of view and quick definition would be to say that in my opinion he was a scientist with a lot of intuition, but he did not finish proposing some real, clear and correct solutions for his theory.

For Quantum Mechanics I have a worse opinion, because I believe that it is a virtual theory, lacking in physical reality to support it, but with such an enormous propaganda (and also manipulative) action that it chooses any confusing circumstance to turn it into evidence in its favour, and ignore any observations contrary to its principles.

For Einstein and his Relativity a point of view and quick definition would be to say that in my opinion he was a scientist with a lot of intuition, but he did not finish proposing some real, clear and correct solutions for his theory.

For Quantum Mechanics I have a worse opinion, because I believe that it is a virtual theory, lacking in physical reality to support it, but with such an enormous propaganda (and also manipulative) action that it chooses any confusing circumstance to turn it into evidence in its favor, and ignore any observations contrary to its principles.

As I say, Einstein had a great intuition and two key points of his theory of Relativity can be derived from it:

1 .--- The reference to the speed of light as a basic element in the cosmos,
2 .--- And the reference to the curvature of space near the masses.

1.- As for the first, the importance of the speed of light, he considered it as the "navel and panacea of physics", something like the sellers in far west of the miraculous tonic that healed everything, both the stomach pain, such as varicose veins, depression, etc.
For him everything depends on the speed of light, and in all the formulas he has to enter to find the right result of the event.
Fact that in good physical logic it should not be like that, since it will only intervene in those phenomena that light intervenes as an element directly, such as the observation of events from a distance through the emission of light.
But for the space and time cannot be expected to change their properties as a function of the speed of light.
That is, space and time are real physical elements, while the speed of light is only a ratio between these physical elements.
But the worst thing about Relativity is that all its postulates contradict each other.
-- For example, so that the speed of light is always the same, it is not possible that the local spaces and times have variation, decrease, etc., or any other changes.
-- We know or adjust that without launching two rays of light (A, B) in the opposite direction, one alone and the other next to a rocket close to the speed of light, after a certain time, we adjust that for the rocket that accompanies the light A, its relative speed is very small, while in relation to ray B, it is almost twice the speed of light.

2.- As for the curvature of space, it is also intuitive, but it is not space that is curved, but the gravitational and magnetic fields that surround all great mass in the Cosmos.
And they do it when turning these masses, and mainly by the turning equator.
This deformation is minimal, and highly variable depending on the magnitude of the core, its speed of rotation, and the distance (radius) at which this spiral deformation is measured.
But the curvature of space is clearly incorrect, and it can be checked with the naked eye by following the direction of any object that falls on a large mass, for example the earth.
The masses fall directly on the earth and do not form curves, and less towards a certain pole.
In addition, the acceleration of the masses as they approach shows that gravity is a concentric force of action on the masses, and not a curvature of space, which would slow down the mass that makes this curve.
In addition, the formulas in which it is tried to express (and demonstrate) this curvature (Schwarzschild metric) show us that this does not occur in the observations.
This metric is good for places where we cannot reach, such as black holes, but in visible astronomy it is not.

3.- Another great error of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is the decisive influence that is granted to the observer of an event, turning this event into a mere puppet of the observer, who handles it at will, changes, transforms, does collapse wave functions, dilate time, shrink space, etc.
What is accepted today as a dogma of faith is simply pretentious and stupid.
To think that the wave functions did not collapse until man appeared on earth, with his magnificent and magical formulas, it is simply a fantasy of an egocentric mind.

Quantum mechanics,
As I pointed out, my opinion of quantum mechanics is worse since it lacks even the intuition that Einstein had.
Here we start from the premise that classical mechanics is quite rudimentary and cannot be improved, and therefore it is necessary to do a “clean slate”.
This way, from certain physical thoughts like:
A.- (Broglie and his enthusiasm for waves) where the particles are waves and their energy is given by their frequency.
B.- That energy only exists and is transmitted in "quanta" (Planck).
C.- Principle of Uncertainty, by which the human inability to investigate deeply is postulated.
D.- Coming to our admired Schrodinger, who proposed the formula of the wave function, which "should be taken" as the possibility of finding particles in space (of course, never proven).
So with all them, we arrive to get a totally virtual quantum mechanics, which shows us a multitude of possibilities for the existence of physical events, in which we intervene as observers and manipulators of them, and which has at the same time a magnificent solution for when we do not understand or we can verify some event or physical phenomenon: "that is because the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is fulfilled", then it is as say: we cannot measure, nor demonstrate, nor understand it, but it follows and agree with our theories.
I always hated the Uncertainty principle a bit, because I understand that what it tries to do is to "hide our heads" and value ourselves in advance as incapable of making measurements and observations at this level:
Something like, "numbing our mind and eagerness to discover."
In addition, it is constantly being verified in the particle accelerators that it is false, but who contradicts the dogmas of faith?

As we see in the drawing, perhaps a bit exaggerated, the curvature of the space of Einstein and Schwarzschild is so far-fetched and far from visible reality that it is impossible to give it the least credibility, if you are a bit critical and minimally we review the proposal of these scientists.
Three simple observations:
1.- If space is deformed by matter, this which is also space will be deformed to the same degree of curvature and shape, and thus, a material nucleus (e.g. the sun) would follow this deformation., (as is seen in the drawing)
2.- If this deformation of space exists, each of the planets would also rotate in different planes of rotation on the sun (depending of the radius to the sun) following this curvature, as seen in the drawing.
But we see that this is not the case, and they all have a similar plane of rotation.
3.-All the stars, sun, planets, etc. They have a force of cohesion and compression of their masses in a spherical shape, reaching a great pressure inside them, for which a huge compression force is needed on the mass of the star, an issue that would not occur if the nuclear matter were only deformed into curve (which cannot even be imagined its shape for the simple reason that it is not possible)
Therefore I understand that it is a theory for faithful followers, but not for critics who look for the pros and cons of each theory.

Well, in my opinion all this is false or inaccurate.
Of course someone would say, because if that is not how the world of physics is; show us.

Well, in my cosmic and atomic theory, which is a theory of everything (TOE), it exposes everything in a simple and easy to understand way, and in it all the basic principles of the cosmic structure are united and structured.
Of course this model is very extensive, but for an article like this, it can be greatly simplified:
1.- The basic elements of the cosmos are space and time (or universal movement).
2.- With the union of space and universal movement, energy is created, which is manifested by lines of movement in a rectilinear character (that is why the inertial force is rectilinear), towards each and every one of the points in space.
3.- Due to the three-dimensional property of space, energy lines cancel themselves, except in the concentric direction about any point in space.
In the concentric direction the cosmic energy lines form points of concentric energy or points of gravity, which can join to form conglomerates of energy points, which is what matter consists of.
4.- The accumulation of large agglomerations of energy or matter points creates a strong energy imbalance in space (high energy density and pressure in that place, and lacking energy in others).
For this reason, a new force is created for the redistribution of energy (similar to the pressure exerted by liquid containers) and that this is with the same pressure throughout the universe.
These forces of energy redistribution are the magnetic forces at the different levels of the Cosmos.
5.- To achieve the redistribution of energy throughout the cosmos, the magnetic forces drive and structure the orbital system (nucleus with orbitals around it), thus forming a large volume system with the average energy density that the cosmos has.
Well, that's how easy the Cosmos works:
Gravity attracts masses to unite them, and their opposing forces, magnetic forces create the orbital systems in which the entire cosmos is structured (atoms with electrons; electrons with neutrinos; stars with planets; planets with moons; galaxies, etc.
And of course also intermediate elements that rotate one on top of the other.

Therefore, the amount of real particles that the Standard Model supposes are nothing more than unstable pieces of matter that seek to unite and form orbital systems in equilibrium.
Nor is it correct that gravity, mass, matter, magnetism, etc. are not unknown.
There are also no intermediate particles to make the others interact: only gravitational attraction and magnetic organization.
It is not true that there is a Higgs boson that has mass, but that every particle because it is matter is at the same time mass.
Etc.
Well, as it is an indicative summary of my opinion and cosmic and atomic model, it seems sufficient.

Thank friends