Whether or not there is a better theory of gravity is irrelevant. ANY replacement theory of gravity must reduce to the known models of gravity given simplifying assumptions. You don't get to throw out all known physics when you replace a theory with something else. So if you want to be taken seriously, you must be able to describe the specific mathematical conditions where your new theory reduces to the relativistic equivalent.

Listen to some of Leonard Susskind's lectures on how they are trying to map new theories of gravity in the bulk to information complexity on the boundary surface (what is called AdS/CFT correspondence, even though everyone realizes that the simplifying assumption of anti de-sitter space is invalid for our universe). He does an excellent job of showing how you can do this and get back to the well known formulas under specific assumptions.

Again, you can not simply discard old theories of gravity wholesale. Whether you want to believe it or not, millions of students have verified the old theories with astonishing accuracy. They aren't all part of the cabal and lying to you. Geologists measure propagation of vibrations through the earth's mantle. If a large portion of the interior were hollow, it would be obvious. Now, there could be pockets that are hollow and hidden underground somehow escaping detection, but not the entire earth.

So yes, I will accept your offer. Please explain to me (using actual math) what exactly is the theory you are proposing, and importantly how it reduces to Einstein's well proven theory under specific, limiting assumptions.