One thing I keep coming up against in my myriad of readings on physics are statements like this:
D.R. Faulkner wrote:Both Newtonian physics and general relativity have tremendous amounts of experimental data supporting them. 
No citations, evidence, or examples of STR/GTR are ever given. It is simply deemed 'established', that the reader fully comprehends the breadth and extent of the evidence, the hands are dusted and the world moves on.D.R. Faulkner wrote:[Donald] Scott’s approach here is typical of those who distrust general relativity theory—they conveniently omit the vast body of evidence in support of general relativity. General relativity has been one of the most experimentally tested theories of all time... 
As a non-physicist I cannot read between the lines here, but I really wish to understand the main arguments of STR/GTR. What exactly are 'the tremendous amounts of experimental data supporting' STR/GTR? What are the evidences put forward by the relativists demonstrating that GTR 'has been one of the most experimentally tested theories of all time'?
And, most importantly, what are the specific counter-arguments set forth by EU/PU proponents that empirically falsify the assumptions of STR/GTR, and/or offer superior explanations of extant STR/GTR predictions?
Any assistance in this collation of materials would be greatly appreciated.
 D.R. Faulkner, "An Evaluation of Plasma Astronomy." Answers Research Journal 6 (2013):306
 Faulkner, 306-307. And yes, Faulkner should have critiqued Peratt's 1992 ed. of Physics of the Plasma Universe as a better starting point on plasma cosmology. I found his critique one of the lamest examples of Einsteinian buttkissing I've ever read.