Title:"Assessment of the Axiomatic System and Reliability of General Relativity According to Section Zero Standards" Abstract: Framework: Section Zero (DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18091473) Analysis Date: January 20, 2026, final file This study presents a systematic analysis of Albert Einstein's General Relativity (GR) through the Section Zero evaluation framework, a novel methodology in scientific quality assurance. Unlike traditional assessments focused on "right/wrong," this research categorizes GR's core axioms according to their empirical verification status: "tested," "untested," and "untestable." Methodology: The analysis is based entirely on peer-reviewed experimental data from prestigious journals (Physical Review Letters, Nature, The Astrophysical Journal, etc.). The study does NOT propose new hypotheses or refute GR, but rather compares the verification status of axioms against existing experimental data. • Data reliability: 95%• Conclusion reliability: 90% Seven main axioms of GR are analyzed in detail, including:(1) Equivalence Principle with three versions: WEP, EEP, SEP(2) General Covariance(3) Einstein Field Equations(4) Metric Structure of Spacetime(5) Geodesic Motion(6) Constancy of speed of light (c = const)(7) Local Energy-Momentum Conservation Each axiom is compared against over 100 years of experimental data from classic experiments such as Mercury's perihelion precession, light bending, gravitational redshift, binary pulsars, LIGO/Virgo, and the Event Horizon Telescope. Main Results: GR is confirmed as the best-tested theory of gravity currently available with 99%+ reliability in weak to moderate field regimes. However, the study identifies significant gaps in experimental data: (i) The assumption c = const is only verified locally (≤20,000 km) with 99.9% reliability, but at cosmic scales only reaches 40% due to lack of direct measurements and circular logic in redshift interpretation (ii) The Strong Equivalence Principle (SEP) only achieves 70% reliability due to lack of strong-field experiments (iii) The form of Einstein's equations is "chosen" rather than "derived," with alternative theories (f(R) gravity, scalar-tensor theories) remaining viable in certain regimes. The study classifies GR as an "Excellent Effective Theory" (⭐⭐⭐⭐) rather than a Complete Fundamental Theory, with clear validity domains: applies well when GM/rc² < 0.5, does not apply inside event horizons, at the Planck scale, and in the early universe. GR depends on dark matter and dark energy (95% of the universe not yet understood), is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, and predicts singularities—breakdown points of the theory itself. The study proposes four universal conditions (U1-U4) for refuting or narrowing GR's validity domain, emphasizing transparency in science: each theory needs to answer "when is this research still valid?" instead of claiming absolute truth. This is the first proof-of-concept case study of the Section Zero framework, with 90% reproducibility, open to public peer review with a commitment to respond within 30 days. Contribution: The study serves as evidence (case study) for an objective, systematic, and evidence-based evaluation tool for scientific theories, clearly distinguishing between "tested" and "untested," between "effective theory" and "fundamental theory." The results do NOT diminish GR's value but clarify the boundaries of knowledge based on current experimental data, encouraging deeper research into unexplored regions. Important Note: This is a verification status analysis/research based on peer-reviewed sources, NOT a study proposing new theories. The analysis itself has not undergone formal peer review, but all cited data are from peer-reviewed scientific sources. Keywords: General Relativity, Section Zero, Metascience, Quality Assurance, Equivalence Principle, Einstein Field Equations, Tested/Untested, Effective Theory, Philosophy of Science License: CC BY 4.0 (applies to this study only) Contact: beo@beolabs.org The author commits to updating when new experimental data emerges and invites the community to contribute constructive feedback with peer-reviewed references. Note: The entire content is written in Vietnamese, but designed to be optimized for machine reading. If you don't know Vietnamese, please follow these instructions: (1) Download the files (2 pdf files: QC-CHECKLIST-FOR-GR.pdf + FAQ....pdf) (2) Upload the files to the AI you are using (3) Simply prompt: "read carefully" Repeat the prompt 2-5 times depending on the platform
BÉO (Thu,) studied this question.