There is no evidence available, Rex, other than structural evidence. That is the whole point. It depends on the viewer. It is in the eye of the beholder. The scientific method is powerless in this respect, no matter how much we admire it. The scientific method has one super-tiny bias and it can only come about at the super-large level for us to see it.
What Einstein's objection showed is that he viewed Spacetime differently than his subsequent followers.
It is a structural distinction. It is not a scientific distinction. It cannot be pointed out with scientific data. Right there were scientific data should be missing (and in reality is missing), scientists pull out pen and paper and show via mathematical and structural methods how their view on reality is correct. On paper, they made something real and they refuse to view the alternate explanation because they have their minds made up.
--
Let me take that measure tape once more. It has actually two realities.
1/ The material that the measure tape is made of.
2/ The measure tags placed on the measure tape.
The material is real, but the function of measuring is not expressed with the material itself. Matter does not measure; matter simply is.
The measure tags are real, but they were placed there by human beings. Human beings decided where the tags would be and they created the function. They added a functional reality to the material reality so they could capture that material reality in their minds.
--
Let's keep it simple. When measuring the universe, we can end up saying that the measure tape is part and parcel of the universe.
Structurally, that would be a mistake.
The structure of the material is not the structure of the measuring function. They are not related. And yet, they are combined into one. As long as we do not separate the physical reality from the created functionality, we will not be aware that our brain treats both in different ways. We meld them into one reality inside our brains if we are not aware that they cannot be made one.
--
What I see Einstein doing (and therefore I am with Einstein) is declaring the framework of the behavior of matter. He declared the measure tape. He presents us the functioning of the behavior of matter in space.
What I see his subsequent followers do is taking the framework and making it real, not per the functioning but per the physical reality of the universe.
Do you see how difficult it is to tell a scientist that he or she is doing something that is scientifically incorrect at this minute and very refined level? They will flip out before they can focus their attention on the issue at hand. They will not make it all the way to the fine point of the structural distinction.
So, they took Spacetime and envisioned it to go where Einstein said: "Absolutely not." They took it beyond a horizon, and Einstein refused to go beyond the horizon.
Then, with capturing images of the gravitational monster, these subsequent followers of Einstein said: "See, we were right all along, and Einstein made a little mistake; he did not get this one right."
But Einstein's framework was about not going beyond a horizon, and with that he would have explained the gravitational monster without an invisible mass on the inside and succeeded.
Do you see that the difference between both outcomes cannot be expressed with scientific data (until the moment we personally get up close to the gravitational monster)?
It is all inside the scientists' heads now how to observe the information (and -worse- to reject the alternate view). I cannot operate on these brains and scientifically change neurons so they finally see their observations in a different light.
Scientifically, we have a structural crisis on our hands, and there are no scientific handles because it is about the scientific handles themselves.
--
So, what you are asking for is not available. No scientists anywhere anytime can deliver.
There is one way only:
It must be understood.
--
I use the Scientific House as the analogy to express the structural setup.
The foundation of Science is solid. There is no better foundation anywhere in the universe.
Yet look at the House of Science and the roof is unfinished.
In comes brilliant Einstein. He sees the other failures created by very smart people in his time, and Einstein knows what to do.
With a crane, the others lifted their fully-built rooflines up from the ground and immediately everyone came running to turn the crane off. Never ever can one lift anything off the ground, not even to put it on top of a building with a missing roofline. Not in science. It must remain solidly based on the scientific grounds, always.
So, Einstein didn't do that. He had the framework for the roofline, and he wrote down what the roofline should be. He never lifted anything off the ground. He never put the roofline in place.
He just mentioned how the roofline should be in place, and everyone was amazed because it was indeed a perfect fit.
—
What happened next is that scientists started using his roofline theory as the basis for science. And that was that.
Do you see it?
Never ever should a scientist use a theory as the basis of science, not even when everyone and their mother agree that the theory is correct.
When one makes a theory the foundation of the scientific work, then we inverted the scientific model.
The scientific foundation principles are all still intact, always used, but they are now hanging upside down off that roofline.
That is all, Rex. If you can see that the smartest brains in science let go of the scientific foundation (just once) in their admiration for Einstein, then I succeeded in my job as a structural philosopher. You do not even have to agree with me, as long as you see the structural setup that occurred within science during and after Einstein and Gödel provided us their brilliant insights.
--
Fast forward to the 1980s and scientists declaring they are looking for the Theory of Everything, and I am certain that Einstein and Gödel had they been alive would have been totally amazed how scientists ended up asking a question that is not scientific at all.
Everything is not a scientific word. Asking if there is a unification possible among all forces, or QM and Gravity, that simply is a biased question. Scientists should not ask biased questions (unless fully aware that they are asking a biased question and then end up also investigating the bias of the question, for which they have not paid any attention at all).
It is so difficult to show how a tiny warp in thinking can deliver such an upside-down outcome compared to leaving out that tiny warp.
It is a structural issue. It is in the eye of the beholder. It does not matter if everyone agrees or not. It is about seeing both options, and about not rejecting the other option until the real data is in.
The gravitational monster is real, we know that.
But we do not know if it is a Black Hole with an invisible mass inside, or if it is a Black Eye without anything material beyond any horizon because that horizon was only real on paper.
Scientists turned the scientific reality inside-out, and they don't even know it.
