Fins and others,
You call and I will come!
JazzB makes some interesting and valid points, whilst still missing the main issue.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity (ToR) is wrong. We have known this for the thick end of 80 years. It is a "classical" (meaning pre-quantum) theory and cannot be reconciled with the (more correct) quantum view of the universe.
At this point, we all need to take a philosophical point of view - does this mean that the theory (ToR) is "wrong", or that it is "basically true" but that there is a deeper theory that we should continue to look for.
When NASA (or anyone else) launches probes to the planets, they rely on Newton rather than Einstein, because it is far easier to work with and the discrepancies are utterly trivial. This does not show that Newton is any more or less (it is less) true than Einstein - it shows that it is a theory that we can work with and gets our probes to where we need them - within the required remit, it works.
As for the Large Hadron (not Hedron!) Collider (noting that Hadron is derived from the Greek and implies a particle with a particualr property that we call "mass") and the suggestion that this is still trying to find the evicence that the Big Bnag actually occurred, I would simply point the OP to Penzias and Wilson, which settled that debate over 40 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery ... _radiation
Again, going back to the question of whether our theories are only "current" or "final", I would direct the OP to Dreams Of A Final Theory (https://www.amazon.com/Dreams-Final-The ... 0679744088
) by the Noble prize winning Steven Weinberg. This is, in truth, more of a polemic than a book, but get your head around that first before you start trying to post threads about a lack of a possble "final" theory.
Back in busines!
Got a copy of Dreams of a final Theory on order off Ebay £3.75 2nd hand.
Thanks for the tip. Paul.