Yes, I think we all agreed on that, and for me this topic has sufficiently been discussed and so I will not comment further in this thread. What remains is possible spin-offs for other, related topics. For example:[..] the concept of "SR based theory of gravitation" is inherently ill-defined and counter-factual.
?? GR is developed on top of SR, but is incompatible with SR's second postulate (the one of Einstein, not of some textbooks). If he did not explain that clearly enough for everyone, then we should probably start it as a topic in which I am willing to participate (in that case, please put a link to it here). It's very straightforward really.[..] One can't really claim that an "SR based theory of gravitation" could not possibly satisfy (operationally) the strong equivalence principle. In fact, there is a field interpretation of general relativity in which the curved metric is just an "effective" metric, on top of the "true" (but unobservable) flat Minkowski metric of special relativity. (This is similar to how special relativity can be interpreted in a Lorentzian sense, by invoking a metaphysically defined sense of "truth", adding strictly unobservable elements to the theory.) So, according to this interpretation, general relativity is actually a "SR based theory of gravitation".
Hmm I did not see anyone suggest that idea... never mind, it's a non issue.I'd say the persistent problem in this thread is the mistaken idea that there is a unique theory of gravity consistent with special relativity,
Again, thanks for all the comments!