Originally Posted by **avito009** Observe what happens when you throw a ball in space the ball moves in a straight line at constant speed and there is no gravity acting on it. Why? |

Because when we are saying this to show how to use Newton's 1st we assume there are no masses around to have a gravitational effect.

Originally Posted by **avito009** If gravity is a fictitious force then we need to prove F=ma but in outer space there is no acceleration since the ball moves in a straight line at constant speed so F=0. |

Why do you keep saying that gravity is a fictitious force? You can look at it from the standpoints of either mass creating a deformation in spacetime, or you could look at it from the standpoint that the math merely mimics such a deformation. Either way it is an actual force.

Originally Posted by **avito009** Now we need to prove it is not a real force which is proved because the ball moves in a straight line at constant speed proving there is no real force. So it is proved that there is no gravity by either of Newtons two laws |

See above where I mentioned the no mass comment.

Originally Posted by **avito009** Now come to light near a black hole using the same logic F=ma cant be proved since light has no mass mass=0 means F=0. Now newtons first law: when light is pulled in a black hole it moves in a straight line and there is no acceleration since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. |

Newton's 1st is not valid here, at least how you are applying it. However here's a link to an effect called "gravitational redshift"

here. There is a force acting on the photon, but it is easier to explain in terms of energy: the photon is losing energy trying to get out of the potential well. That loss of energy makes the wavelength of the light longer while it is "climbing out."

Originally Posted by **avito009** By this observation it is proved that there is no gravity acting on light. See my earlier thread in which i said gravity is not conserved. Taking these observations it is proved that light is not trapped inside a black hole. If there was an infinite curvature of spacetime then light would have been pulled inside a black hole. Thus proving wrong the fact that mass causes space-time to curve. |

There isn't an "infinite curvature of space-time" at the event horizon of a black hole. The Schwarzschild radius is defined as a region of space where the escape speed of an object is at or larger than the speed of light. It really isn't a singularity at all. (But that's a topic for another thread.) There is an infinite curvature of space-time at the very center of the black hole...that one is a real singularity. (Again, a topic for another thread.)

Originally Posted by **avito009** This proves the observation wrong that Mass causes spacetime to curve. Rather this proves my earlier theory correct that a planet does not move in orbit due to curvature of spacetime but due to the astronomical concept of kinetic energy due to formation of planet. |

This is indeed a topic where we don't need GR. For most purposes of Astronomy in the Solar System Newtonian gravity is a very close approximation to GR and most Astronomers don't even bother with GR because of it. There are only some slight measurements, such as precession of the perihelion of Mercury, that aren't accounted for by Newtonian gravity.

-Dan