This classy bordello would sing: General relativity and Special relativity is false, fake, and wrong

Before I rebut, I will make my opening statements.Proof of relativity-- from http://en.wikipedia.org..."Albert Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the classical tests of general relativity, in 1916:[1]1. The perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit2. The deflection of light by the Sun3. The gravitational redshift of light"And he also says "The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible". So, what Sir Einstein is saying, is that if even one of these three is disproved, then his theory is wrong.As cited by the same wikipedia page, the first point is proven in this chart:Sources of the precession of perihelion for MercuryAmount (arcsec/Julian century)Cause531.63 Â±0.69[1] Gravitational tugs of the other planets 0.0254 Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment) 42.98 Â±0.04[2] General relativity 574.64Â±0.69 Total 574.10Â±0.65[1] Observed Point two is proven by this part of the passage: "...The first observation of light deflection was .... performed in May 1919 by Arthur Eddington and his collaborators during a total solar eclipse,[3] so that the stars near the Sun could be observed. Observations were made simultaneously in the cities of Sobral, CearÃ¡, Brazil and in SÃ£o TomÃ© and PrÃ­ncipe on the west coast of Africa."Point three is proven by "it was....conclusively tested when the Poundâ€"Rebka experiment in 1959 measured the relative redshift of two sources situated at the top and bottom of Harvard University's Jefferson tower using an extremely sensitive phenomenon called the MÃ¶ssbauer effect.[4][5] The result was in excellent agreement with general relativity".[1] http://adsabs.harvard.edu......[2] http://classroom.sdmesa.edu......[3] Dyson, F. W.; Eddington, A. S., Davidson C. (1920). "A determination of the deflection of light by the Sun's gravitational field, from observations made at the total eclipse of 29 May 1919". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 220A: 291â€"333.[4] http://adsabs.harvard.edu......[5] http://adsabs.harvard.edu......The links don't work for some reason but they can be found on Wikipedia.org, and they're professional websites cited at the bottom of Wikipedia's page concerning relativity that I cited above.Now, onto my rebuttals! Bad name of relativity Just because something does not look the way it is does not mean it is wrong. Here's an example. Bannana is a bannana. That is correct. But Bannana looks like Ban Nana (Ban nana= get rid of your nanny) Bannana =/= ban nana But that does not mean Bannana is not correct. Just because you add a space does not make a bannana magically become banning a nanny. The bannana is still a bannana. Similarly, just because you call it "general" relativity does not mean it has to be general. Who knows? Maybe Relativity's Commander-in-Chief? But either way, "General" or "Special" are just names. They don't determine how false it is. I could call 1+1=2 "The Theory of Super Incredible Fathom Quantums", assuming I discovered that 1+1=2. I'm the creator, I get to create the name, no matter how ridiculous. Einstien wanted his serious theory to sound funny. A specific theory being called "general" is pretty funny in my opinion. He did it. Not to mention his theory is still correct, even if it's funny. Next up, phenomenology. My opponent fails to show exactly how and why the relativity "contradicts" itself. He needs to show the exact quotes. He can't just give us a website. Who knows, it might actually support relativity. No verification of spacetime Already proven above The wrong equation We're not talking about the equation here. I only have to prove the theories of relativity. The prediction being slightly off still proves space time exists. General relativity is still proven even with these new equations. Relativity did not fail. Relativity exists, and it's true.