Ok. Not sure what that’s got to do with the way you cherry pick little bits of science you don’t really understand when it suits you and dismiss the rest.
That is not true. I only dismiss things when there is not enough emperical evidence. There have been relative motion experiments, but I know of no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space'.
The real crime is the position of appealing to authority and accepting everything you are told.
No, because Einstein never "showed gravity to be a 'bending of space' " but:
In Einstein’s view of the world, gravity is the curvature of spacetime caused by massive objects.
From: Understanding gravity—warps and ripples in space and time
And there is a huge and highly significant difference between "a 'bending of space' " and "the
curvature of spacetime".
Therefore there are "no experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of space' " but there are experiments which show gravitation to result from a
curvature of spacetime caused by massive objects".
The following is long but might be worth reading.
Spacetime can be thought of as having both
spacelike and
timelike components.
When
spacetime is curved by a massive object like the earth both the
spacelike and
timelike components are curved but only infinitesmally.
And it is the curvature of the
timelike component that is the only significant cause of gravitation near earth or even the sun.
To simplify writing this I will just use
Space in lieu of the
spacelike component and
Time in lieu of the
timelike component in the following.
Objects are usually moving through both
Space and
Time and to compare these, compatible units must be used.
In cosmology, these units might be distance in
Space in
lightyears and
Time in
years but for local objects,
Space in
lightseconds and
Time in
seconds is more natural.
Now just as an example an object supported above the earth might be considered
stationary in
Space (or travelling at 0
lightseconds/second) relative to the earth but is travelling in
Time at
seconds/second).
The mass of the earth curves
spacetime towards the earth so an unconstrained object (one in free-fall) would follow this trajectory (known as a
geodesic) and fall to earth.
But the constrained object requires a force to prevent it from following its natural trajectory in
spacetime - an inertial pseudo-force.
The curvature in
spacetime near the earth in so small as to be virtually undetectable - an effective change in the diameter of earth of only about 4 mm and 1 m for the sun (if I'm not mistaken).
Now as to "experiments which show gravity to be a 'bending of
spacetime'."
Till recently little more could be said other than that all observations have been "consistent with GR" but recent numerical results have provided more direct evidence.
These all are to do with cosmology because for ordinary calculations within the solar system Newton's Laws are extraordinarily accurate.
See this quote from
Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity by John D. Norton One condition the new equations must satisfy is that they must return Newtonian results for ordinary conditions. For Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system. The sentence highlighted in red says:
"However it turns out the this tensor does not reduce to the [Newtonian expression] Δφ in the case of infinitely weak, static gravitational fields."
But as to the topic "Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator", that involves accepting just a little step on "Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity" and denying everything else he developed from that.