BLAMING SPECIAL RELATIVITY?

On Jul 13, 7:58*am, Tom Roberts wrote:
The experimental support of SR in essentially all non-gravitational
contexts is solid and unassailable (except in certain ways by experts
blazing a trail toward quantum gravity -- look up "doubly special
relativity", but be prepared for advanced math). SR is one of the
best-tested theories we have, and within its domain of applicability
there is not a single reliable and reproducible experiment which
contradicts its predictions. SR and GR are also inflexible
theoretically: attempting to modify SR and/or GR is like being "a little
bit pregnant" -- there are no simple modifications possible (the experts
know this, and take it into account in pursuing QG). Cranks like Baird
(and many others around here) simply do not have a clue about how to do
physics, or what physics really is.

Your sycophancy will not work, Honest Roberts. Perimeter Institute is
closed for you forever. The "experts" you worship so desperately are
so silly that they don't even know that both Einstein's and Newton's
theories predict light bending in a gravitational field:

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...ldResize=False
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

As you can see, Lee Smolin does not need you Honest Roberts. He is
much sillier than you and if you go to the Perimeter Institute he will
have to leave....

Pentcho Valev