What we don't know eclipses what we do know. But still, some things smack me as being so unlikely that I have to reject them outright. The mind-numbingly convoluted theory of relativity makes me think of it as our modern-day heavenly spheres, attributed to Ptolemy. The heavenly-spheres theory explains the movements of the solar system, and does a good job of predicting what will be where at different times too. It is a complicated model where each planet revolves around 2 different centers, with the result being a corkscrew path in the heavens. Copernicus is credited with a huge paradigm shift, and presto: way simpler mechanics explain and predict the movements. The sun is at the center of the whole thing, not the Earth.
Two theories, both practical. Which one is right? The simpler one, a perfect illustration of Occam's razor. So what is more likely, that we live in a literal 4-dimensional (at least) space-time continuum, with time being a physically real thing that can cause quasi-magical anomalies, or that we live in a much simpler universe, where we lack the understanding of some fundamental thing (like the solar system's center) which would simplify our modeling of it immensely? For now, relativity is practical. Let's stick to it when dealing with celestial mechanics. In the absence of Copernicus, Ptolemy will have to do.