Wiley:

I appreciate your question and respect you for your obvious knowledge, thoughtfulness, and sincerity. So please do not think that my answer implies any form of disparagement. For me the three statements are meaningless because:

1.) I think that there can be no such a thing as a freely falling body.

2.) I think that there can be no such a thing as a freely falling reference frame.

3.) I think that there can be no such a thing as the universe.

However, if I correctly understand the thrust of your inquiry what follows is a more relevant response.

There is no question that many of the predictions of relativity theory have been verified, and some of them many times and in multiple ways. However, proof of the consequent is never proof of the antecedent. Karl Popper taught us that falsifiability is the hallmark of science. From him we learned that no matter how much supporting evidence there is for a theory, all that is required is one verifiable contradiction of the theory to completely discredit it.

If a theory is false in some way but nonetheless makes subsequently verified predictions, it means that the predictions are based not so much on the theory as on ideas or logic imported into the theory. For example, the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction theory and the Lorentz transformations (a response to the Michelson-Morley experiment) predated Einstein’s work by many years. Einstein used that theory and those transformations in his Special Theory of Relativity.

I believe that the contraction theory and Lorentz transformations will eventually be applied to a non-relativistic theory that will make those same predictions and more. A more detailed explanation, beyond the scope of a bulletin board, can be found in my books. The second book, A Journey Beyond The Universe, describes some surprising fundamental aspects of such a non-relativistic theory. Excerpts from both can be read at:

http://www.theuniverse.andmuchmore.com

They are now also available as inexpensive eBooks at xlibris.com.