"A benchtop experiment, which most people can build, creates a force that reaches the other end of the bench at about 2x the speed of light. Relativity disproven."

I doubt it very much. I have never heard of this. If it's real I will say so, but without more specifics I cannot ascertain if it is.

"The speed of light has been recorded over the years shifting, until the meteorological society ( study of measurement) decided to SET the speed of light) Relativity disproven"

No. Our incompetence isn't proof of anything but that itself. There are all manner of reasons light changes speed, the most common - actually ubiquitous - being that light only travels at light speed through a perfect vacuum, which doesn't exist in practice. Our failure to understand many things may well underlie our inability to understand experimental results, and missascribing some result to something isn't uncommon. There are people working on theories that involve particles always traveling in figure eights, always taking every possible path simultaneously, being affected by gravity, getting 'tired' traversing long distances, and all sorts of things. The speed of objects is still relative to each other, which is really what relativity is bout. The equation E=MC^2 remains fundamental to an insane breadth and variety of actual devices that work because that is true. I don't think our lack of competence to know lots of other things disproves things we see working.

"Bohr destroyed his theories. Quantum Physics emerged victorious."

I have read the Solvay conference papers and narrative, and Bohr was just a bully. Bohm and De Broglie's pilot theory was prevented from even being considered just because Bohr was so scathing. Quantum physics isn't 'victorious'. It hasn't vanquished classical relativistic physics. Both continue to exist, at different scales. I have recently learned of experiments that blur the line of scale, so there is yet attempts being made to resolve the differences.

Tesla clearly well understood physics of fields, of charges, vectors, and waves, but that doesn't mean his theories even clashed with relativity. My understanding of of our 4D experience isn't because I'm just mouthing words I have been taught to parrot. I understand why time travel back in time is impossible because every traversal of space requires traversal of time, because what actually exists is spacetime. No event happens in space that doesn't take time. These features of the universe, while we perceive them separately, are inextricably one thing that has both aspects we perceive as space and time.

We cannot go back in time because that would require traversing negative space, which cannot exist. When we traverse space we proceed into the future, and to go into the past we would have to traverse antispace, or rather antitraverse space, and this just isn't possible. This is why, although math can calculate both directions, in actually the arrow of time only points into the future.

Tesla never, to my knowledge, proposed anything contradictory to this. TBH, relativity is just common sense. If he spoke of an aether, he likely referred to the vacuum pressure, which isn't something that clashes with classical physics. If he ever understood the transition from quantum effects and classical effects, no such formula has ever been provided to us, although John Trump might well have hidden it from us.

Ultimately I am absolutely certain that there are fundamental lapses in our understanding of physics that will dramatically alter E=MC^2, because Quantum physics and classical physics are both aspects of the universe we are in. Waves and quanta are both part of the universe, too.

For example, I am beginning to suspect our observation of events does affect them, because consciousness appears to be a fundamental cause of events. Presentiment seems to be statistically undeniable from repeated experiments, and this seems to suggest that information regarding events travels back in time from the future. Consciousness isn't bound by the laws of physics if that is so. I used to scoff at the idea superposition collapsed because we observed, but now I suspect that may actually be what happens.

Edit:

"I should just be able to write "it is disproven" without anything further..."

You certainly can, but that's meaningless without some strong evidence, so don't expect anyone to agree with you just because you said so.