That is your trouble YBM. You calculate and calculate, and in the end
you know nothing. Just like the string theorists. Good at calculating,
but not quite good in knowing what their doing.

I just found out that in "When Einstein completed General Relativity in
1917, he was initially disappointed with the theory in that it did not
explain inertia, which Einstein hoped that it would."

Yep, the inertia went missing... But where did it go ?

Same thing happened to Schrodinger, he thought his equation would yield
deterministic results. They did not.

So, if the people who wrote the equations knew barely what they were
doing, how can anyone else claim they do ?

Einstein had a model of space and time in his mind, based on his thought
experiments. They are quite easy to grasp. Then he teamed up with
Grossman, and tried to cast this into tensor form. At the end he
succeeded with some help from Hilbert.

Some parts of GR seem to work, and since inertia is a real phenomenon,
inertia must be in GR, but where ? Einstein thought he included it, but
lost it.

Now you know what a clock does, in a gravitational field, so this field
must have some properties other than just gravitational attraction. It
slows down clocks. And any other motion too.

What slows down motion ? That is inertia..

How would you measure inertia ? By accelerating something back and
forth, and registering the time inbetween the accelerations. That is
exactly what a clock does.

Why does the earth function as a clock ? Because inertia makes it turn !
What would happen if the earth-clock experienced time dilation ? The
earth has to rotate slower...by what mechanism this could be
accomplished ? Increase the inertia, it seems like the mass of the Earth
increases, and since momentum is conserved, the Earth slows down.

Relativity just teaches me that it is impossible, so far, to measure the
strength of the inertial field you are in. All your clocks suffer from
the same inertia. Hence the meaning of relativity : you can only, again
so far, compare inertia (your clock reading) with another inertia in
another frame. In a frame ALL the physical processes undergo the same
inertia, so you cannot measure it locally.

I find it strange, and it never stops wondering me, how totally unable
people are to reason for themselves, and even to accept views that are
logically explained to them. It takes authority to make them accept views.

It is not only that they are unable to find the way themselves, but also
  to find their way with a map, and then even with a map with a large
arrow - you are here, and with the route to follow dotted out.

It is in the details, you have to understand Mach's Principle, to grasp
some details of GR, and SR. Then I carefully studied every way we derive
time from, and found them all working on inertia.

Then I looked at the Equivalence principle, and what Eotvosch does tell
us. It leaves room open for interpretation. And since GR says
gravitation influences clocks, and since gravitation and inertia are
equivalent...and since clocks work on inertia, take the earth, for
instance, and then I drew the conclusion.

A clock is an inertiameter.

Einstein's missing inertia, was hidden in his faulty notion of time.
One does not read time on a clock, but inertia.

And now you can claim all you want, that an approach to physics should
be more mathematical, but then I bounce back the question : how come I
found this out first, and by using intuition, by trying to find out what
the formula's mean, and with working with those physical models in my mind.
If "shut up and calculate" is the preferred method, how come I have
beaten them to it ?

Because of course, calculating is no method whatsoever, the barren
results of String theory show us that. After 100 years of calculating,
none of the calculators can't say what a clock is, what time is, and how
to explain the quantum weirdness.

And your counterarguments are, Hayek is a crackpot, so what he says
can't be right. While in fact, you should go looking to try to falsify
my interpretation, and find a clock that does not work on inertia.
And if you do not find one, say, maybe it is not such a bad idea.