Special relativity is the root of all the evil? Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false? The speed of light is variable? Yes, yes, and yes, but in Divine Albert's schizophrenic world only Einsteiniana's high priests are allowed to talk about that (anybody else automatically becomes crank, crackpot, troll, etc):

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physic.../dp/0618551050
Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ma...einsteinwrong/
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? The idea of a variable speed of light, championed by an angry young scientist, could one day topple Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics.. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner? (...) Is it now Einstein's turn to be toppled? It could be. In spite of the entrenched position of the theory of relativity, few physicists would claim that it is the last word. In particular, it cannot readily be united with the other great product of 20th-century physics - quantum mechanics. All attempts to develop a consistent quantum description of gravitation involve fudging Einstein's original theory in some way. So sooner or later observational flaws will probably appear in the theory of relativity. It may be that Webb's quasar data already hint at trouble ahead. The idea that the speed of light might vary from time to time, or even place to place, isn't new. Several years ago John Moffat of the University of Toronto published a theory along these lines, but his work seems to have been overlooked. For some reason, the flurry of recent papers on the subject has stirred up a scientific hornet's nest, provoking a strong negative reaction from mainstream physicists. I have some personal experience of this. Last August I published a short note in Nature, co-authored with two colleagues from the University of New South Wales. We applied the VSL idea to the theory of black holes, to see what the implications would be for the laws of thermodynamics. The paper appeared in the northern hemisphere silly season, and so it received extensive media coverage, in spite of its modest scope and technical nature. Almost immediately I was deluged with hostile denunciations from colleagues, in some cases couched in tones of barely concealed anger. What was all the fuss about? This was, after all, just a calculation."

Pentcho Valev