I decided to pull this up into a separate post, because I think it illustrates exactly the problem that Frank Tipler was identifying. Two comments:

“I’ll add that General Relativity is sort of a “dead end” in physics in the sense that practically nothing depends on it. You can’t really use it for anything.

and

Rand, I think you just cited the exception that proves the rule when you referenced GPS. Where else do you use general relativity on a regular basis? It’s an interesting topic, but doesn’t seem to be core to a physics degree.

Well, I provided at least one more example–tracking NEOs that might hit us in the next few decades.

But the point is that if you don’t understand general relativity, you won’t even know whether or not you need to consider it. I’m simply staggered by the notion that it’s an esoteric field that has no use.

Any time you do an orbital calculation, you have to know whether or not you can get by with Newton, or whether or not you need to incorporate Einstein. It may be that in many cases you don’t need to, but to not even consider it would be professional malpractice, just as someone doing a suborbital rocket would need to decide whether a flat-earth (i.e, Galileo) model was good enough, or if they had to do it Newtonian, and consider the differences in the model. And how could you possibly make such an assessment if you don’t understand General Relativity?

To me, this simply reinforces Tipler’s point.