This is such a poorly-written article that it's nearly impossible to understand what the author is trying to convey. As for refuting General Relativity (a) we know it's not a complete theory because it can't be reconciled with quantum mechanics, yet (b) every test that's been applied to GR has shown that GR accurately describes the behavior of mass/energy within a four-dimensional spacetime.

Thus it can't be "refuted" but merely replaced with something better, at some point - and that something better won't be the inane ramblings of someone who believes their pet theory doesn't need to (a) account for all the successes of existing theories, and (b) make unique and testable predictions - the classic proof test.

So basically this entire article is a waste of everyone's time.