(Again, some punctuation had to be made incorrect for it to display close to what was intended). It is always unwise to encroach into a territory that is not your specialty, as one may be unaware of many things that are relevant to a particular discussion.
So, with this disclaimer, the following might be amateurish with respect to the subject. But give it a thought, anyway.
I have to introduce one more disclaimer, which is that none of the things I will say are critical of Pentcho Valev or his views. The points I will try to make are relating to principles, rather than to any articulated views or ideas of anyone.
When criticizing a theory, it would be best to immediately substitute it with a better theory. If the criticism is merely intended as a Call to Arms (to get other scientists to look at it), then it may be worthwhile, but in the case of SR and GR, there already are enough critical eyes looking at it. Einsteins theories predictions have a very good record, so any new (putatively better) theory will have to outdo it.
Now I will really go out on a limb. It is my simple understanding that for Einstein to construct his SR/GR, he needed at least two points of reference. One was a space/time reference and another was the speed of something (could have been of a horse-drawn buggy). But he chose the speed of light, because at the time it was measured it appeared to not vary, and was the fastest known. So it made simple sense to use c as a base. In any case, as Thomas Howard Ray points out, the speed of light is an observed phenomenon. The only way to discredit that would be to show that although the measurements might appear consistent, there are reasons for that apparent effect to actually be incorrect.
I really think we are wasting our (and those of others) time with discussions like those in Ripping Apart Einstein, and Faster Than a Speeding Bullet (sorry), Faster Than Light, unless we can substitute Einsteins theories with ones that make better predictions.
