[fargolime]

Special relativity as published included no experimental confirmation. None of its quantitative predictions in the original publication were "lined up with reality" by Einstein. What came after the theory was published, experiments done by others, is obviously irrelevant to the point you're making.

The blog proves that general relativity predicts that sufficiently high-redshift supernovae accelerate away from us, the 1998 observation of which is currently a mystery. The blog offers the same level of corroborating evidence as special relativity did when it was published, both offering solutions to observational mysteries. Neither Einstein nor the blog author lined up anything with reality numerically in their original publications.

Yet you insist (at a minimum) the blog author add up the masses of all the millions (trillions?) of galaxies within a sphere centered on the Earth and whose radius extends to those supernovae, billions of light years from the Earth, to make a numerical prediction of the rate those supernovae are accelerating away from us. You suggest that not doing such a calculation means the blog is hand-waving. Well I say again that's unscientific as hell. Yes by your standard, special relativity as published would be junk and Einstein would be a crackpot.

(I probably won't say anything more because I get tired of this type of discussion. You seem to be done with scientific attempts to discredit the blog.)

[mikeash]

It doesn't look that way to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

In particular, the Lorentz transformation at the heart of relativity was derived from experiments years before.