1. General Relativity is the theoretical framework that is accepted by modern Physics.
Relativity is a bunch of BS just like evolution.
Relativity assumes the failure of the MM experiment and amounts to an attempt to adapt the rest of physics to the supposed imperviousness of light speed. One problem is that Dayton Miller, one of the best physicists of the era immediately after Michelson and Morley, re-ran the experiment with better equipment and at higher altitude (to attenuate the effect of gravitational drag from the Earth itself) and, apparently, the experiment did not fail:
The book I'd normally recommend to somebody wishing a basic grasp of relativity would be Lewis Carroll Epstein's Relativity Visualized:
Epstein uses the following analogy for what Einstein did or tried to do: Imagine that you have a house in which all windows and every door other than for one worked and opened and shut easily but that the one door was binding. Normally you'd simply plane material from the one door until it worked properly. But you COULD go to your local Walmart and buy a couple of hundred jacks and jack the foundation of the house until the one door worked, and then re-adjust every other door and window in the house and/or plane THEM or do whatever it took to ensure that they all worked again.... In the analogy of course, the house is modern physics, the one bad door is light, and the other doors and windows are all of the other things in the house of physics, time, distance, inertia, velocity... Epstein claims that relativity is the one case you would ever encounter in which this second approach was the right one but it seems sufficiently obvious to me that this is a gross violation of Occam's basic principle and that there could never be such a case.
There is the problem that even if you accept the proposition of light speed does not vary, there may be other explanations for that and, apparently, nobody investigated any of those other explanations. One version of such an explanation involves the sub-electron particles which Ralph Sansbury describes:
Sansbury describes light as an instantaneous force; there is another possible explanation for light and involving sub-electron particles, which would involve an analogy with rifle fire.
There is another problem in that Ron Hatch, the man who holds most of the basic patents for GPS as I read it, claims that relativity is not compatible with the actual research involved in GPS
There is an obvious problem with gravity (which propagates instantaneously) and any sort of a claim that information cannot be transmitted faster than C.
And there is a gigantic problem with claiming that gravity amounts to some sort of a 4-dimensional differential geometry thing. You cannot start with that and believe that gravity could have recently undergone any sort of a large change near the surface of our own planet, nonetheless it is an easy demonstration that it has, and that a large dinosaur would be crushed by his own weight in our present world.