This is retarded.

I think its instantaneously active as an attribute of mass.  The reaction of other masses and energy to gravity is limited to C.  but not all discrete energy has mass, even some particles don't and aren't affected.

ok check this awesome diagram

..................................................................................................................................................star
Earth...............................................................................JUPITER......................................................
.........................................................................................................................Moon........................

where the jovian moon marks the limit of Jupiter's gravity
so light from the star to earth, passes through jupiter's gravity and is bent.
light from the star passes through Jupiter's gravity well once on the way to earth
a laser fired from earth to the jovian moon and back would pass through earth's gravity once, twice thru jupiter's (there and back) and twice through the moon's (there and back)   

betcha that reflected laser won't be slower than the starlight coming back to earth

Just a side note, i cannot find any reference to Carbon nano-tubes flexing at both ends simultaneously, even a 'perfect' one (what ever that means.) they have very high Young's modulus and Tensile strength, and there is debate about the maximum E & σ that these carbon nano-tubes could get too however there doesn't seem to be any musings on these values being able to be infinite, which is required for your so called 'perfect' nanotube. The link you provided Flint, whilst being 10 years out of date, also didn't provide the evidence you seemed to be asked for, nor any reference to a 'stress point', though one assumes you meant Young's modulus, or maybe Tensile strength.

So what we have is an imaginary object which can act in any way we like which then can be shown to prove that a well known concept which has been shown to be correct is in fact incorrect and the greatest minds of recent history are incorrect.

Clearly you're ALL wrong, because I'm ignorant in pointing out the inability of any tube to transmit kinetic energy instantaneously an infinite distance.

Which is why I said you are clearly wrong. He called me ignorant while posting ignorance I'd already called him on. I was just enjoying a victory lap.