I wouldn't use the term 'false', how about incomplete? At non relativistic speeds Newtons equations are extremely accurate, but I am quibbling :( I know your scientific understanding may exceed mine.
Congruent conflation, pot calling the kettle black, they are two different things but they are both black. Yes I know that Special and General Relativity are two separate ideas but most people would be hard pressed to explain the difference. So I would probably have to agree with you when you say, "But my point was that Dunn doesn't understand the two theories and doesn't even understand that they're different.
My take on his statement was that except for the date he cited he used the General Relativity Theory properly. He also used the word 'proved' improperly and that is why I changed the word to 'supported' in my reply :) Despite those two errors (and there are more, I am sure) I thought the article was relatively interesting and worthy of more than an instant dismissal.
I don't think that's an appropriate term to apply here. "Incomplete" implies that you can add on to obtain a complete theory but the difference between Newton's and Einstein's conception is not additive. Einstein gives a fundamentally different description of the phenomenon.
non relativistic speeds Newtons equations are extremely accurate
What do you mean by "extremely accurate?" That for non-relativistic speeds we can't tell it's wrong? That's not correct.
most people would be hard pressed to explain the difference.
True, but would those people try to instruct us on scientific matters? I think anyone who doesn't know the difference between two of the greatest scientific ideas of the past century should keep his mouth shut about science.
I thought the article was relatively interesting and worthy of more than an instant dismissal.
In what way specifically?