Well, Einstein was just one of thousands of physicists in the 20th century who contributed small steps in understanding the universe, and of course tremendous progress was made. The laws of physics, which include Maxwell's Equations and Special Relativity (which, itself, includes Newton's Laws, and so is not separate from it), are known well enough to predict the behavior of the universe back to about a billionths of a second after time began. Thousands of measurements have assessed these ideas and led to the rejection of alternative explanations - the scientific method. Is our knowledge complete? Nope. Never said it was. A good scientist knows the limits of knowledge. But a good scientist also knows that you don't give up, and you keep using an idea until it breaks. I hope relativity and quantum physics break in my lifetime, so we can learn the better idea. Until they stop working, we'll keep testing them.
Your provided reference is a non-scientific site. The author offers no real credentials. They are a poor source of information. Anyone can make a .com or .org site and say anything they want; avoid them as primary sources.
Here, for instance, is a key bulletin that handset manufacturers are required to follow in order to make sure their handset receivers implement the 2nd-order relativistic corrections needed to adjust for non-standard satellite orbits, which affect GPS signals beyond the frequency corrections built into the satellites to handle the bulk of the time dilation effects:
As you can see by searching through the document, there is extensive mathematics to implement in software to make the final corrections and achieve full possible accuracy.
It's unfortunate the one engineer you spoke with didn't know this. putting you on the wrong path.
Newton + Maxwell are good, but insufficient to understand the universe.
Ok, well, there you can go ahead and ask any engineer that works on the design of these systems. I don't know what your training is, or what your profession is, but go ahead and find engineering information about GPS and you will see that you here very wrong here. That's extremely basic information about the GPS system.
Since you're not being very open-minded in this conversation, I recommend that we stop talking. Your resistance to basic information like this means you need to do some homework before denying physics concepts. It's not enough to reject them; you have to have evidence to reject a claim, and I recommend you take some basic physics online free courses (e.g. the OpenCourseWare from Yale's physics course by Prof. Ramamurti Shankar, freely available in its entirety on YouTube).
I've enjoyed some of our conversation and I wish you well.
Let's say that what you just said - for instance, space not warping and time not dilating - was true. In that case, it should have been possible to launch the global positioning satellite system (which I assume you use for navigation - if not, I am certain something you rely on uses it, given its modern ubiquity) and just uses the radio signals from the satellites, uncorrected for time dilation, to navigate. But if you do that - if you neglect time's stretching due to gravity and motion, the GPS system is more and more off every day by an additional 10km. This is because time passes differently in the satellites than down on earth, owing to their high speed and our position in a stronger gravitational field. Once you correct for that using the basic equations of special and general relativity, voila! The GPS system is accurate again. This is just one example. If you rely on this system, it's dangerous to reject these ideas. They care central to it working at all.
Space does not warp, time does not dilate, Einstein is bullshit and has held physics back for over 100 years.
There are no black holes, dark matter, or gravity waves and the big bang is just a nonsensical creation myth, there is no evidence for any of this fantasy world just false assumptions and mathemagical projections.
What is your specific complaint? Your comment was vague and ill-formed. For instance, give me an example of something you think is not scientific, but which is widely considered to be supported by scientifically gathered evidence.