Changes

#was the greatest American physicist ever, and perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century,

#was the greatest American physicist ever, and perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century,

#criticized or refuted relativity,

#criticized or refuted relativity,

#was denied the Nobel Prize because because of this

#was denied the Nobel Prize because of this

are all questionable and excessive.  Inventing the lock-in amplifier was nice, but you don't win Nobels for that.  There are many other American physicists (Michelson, Morley, Feynmann, Weinberg, Bethe, Compton, Anderson, Glashow, Bardeen, Brattain, Shockley, etc. etc.) that one could claim were superior.  And, if one goes outside the United States but stays within the 20^th century, the list is even longer—Bohr, Dirac, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, etc.  Also, I assume you know that ''Dicke accepted special relativity'', as did every other scientist worthy of the name.  His disagreement was over the claim that general relativity explains gravity.  He accepted the metric tensor on 4-dimensional spacetime, and Riemann's tensor, and Ricci's tensor, and Einstein's tensor, and that gravity arises from Ricci's and Einstein's tensors.  He simply had a different "scalar-tensor" formulation than Einstein, about how Ricci's and Einstein's tensors arise from matter.  His theory becomes equivalent to Einstein's if the coupling constant (ω) goes to infinity.  And you must know, because you have cited the article [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html here], spacecraft measurements ''have definitively refuted the Brans-Dicke theory.''  (The article is currently behind a subscription firewall, but I have read it.)  You do not win Nobels for proposing theories that, brilliant though they may be, are wrong.  And your often-repeated statement that he was denied a Nobel for criticizing relativity is preposterous.  He didn't criticize it, and you don't know why he never won the prize.  There are many physicists, and few prizes, and many worthy people never win the prize.

are all questionable and excessive.  Inventing the lock-in amplifier was nice, but you don't win Nobels for that.  There are many other American physicists (Michelson, Morley, Feynmann, Weinberg, Bethe, Compton, Anderson, Glashow, Bardeen, Brattain, Shockley, etc. etc.) that one could claim were superior.  And, if one goes outside the United States but stays within the 20^th century, the list is even longer—Bohr, Dirac, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, etc.  Also, I assume you know that ''Dicke accepted special relativity'', as did every other scientist worthy of the name.  His disagreement was over the claim that general relativity explains gravity.  He accepted the metric tensor on 4-dimensional spacetime, and Riemann's tensor, and Ricci's tensor, and Einstein's tensor, and that gravity arises from Ricci's and Einstein's tensors.  He simply had a different "scalar-tensor" formulation than Einstein, about how Ricci's and Einstein's tensors arise from matter.  His theory becomes equivalent to Einstein's if the coupling constant (ω) goes to infinity.  And you must know, because you have cited the article [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html here], spacecraft measurements ''have definitively refuted the Brans-Dicke theory.''  (The article is currently behind a subscription firewall, but I have read it.)  You do not win Nobels for proposing theories that, brilliant though they may be, are wrong.  And your often-repeated statement that he was denied a Nobel for criticizing relativity is preposterous.  He didn't criticize it, and you don't know why he never won the prize.  There are many physicists, and few prizes, and many worthy people never win the prize.