Perfectly. You missed the point I was making - which is that I'm educated enough to know that there is published material supporting the points I want to make, and I know how to find the wikipedia pages that link to it. I didn't make it all that explicitly in the hope of eliciting the reaction you produced.
You missed that - and thought that posting two totally irrelevant wikipedia pages would get you off the hook.
It was a very gratifying response.
You really are a stupid uneducated crank, and get told this often enough to predict that people will point this out. This is learning by experience rather than any kind of exhibition of insight. If you had any insight you might have come to realise that we are right, but if you had that much insight you might well have got an education.
It's not predicting errors, it is predicting predictable differences between clocks travelling at different speeds and in different gravitational fields. You like calling the differences "errors" but that's an abuse of the word.
It predicts a difference between a clock which has stayed put, and a matching clock which has travelled away at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light and travelled back again at a similar sort of speed.
You have a passion for calling this difference an "error".
You are dumb enough to think that articulating your self-serving misconceptions is worth the effort.