What?Originally posted by elas
Yes, it is a postulate. It has been confirmed, and so have its consequences
Postulate suggest or assume the existence, fact or truth.
You keep referring to these experiments that falsify relativity.All experimenters assume that 'C' is a constant and not a maximum speed. The same sort of error was made by scientist measuring Ozone Depletion but they had the good sense to accept the proposal that there readings were wrong. QP physicists have a closed mind when it comes to alternative possibilities and Relativity physicist flatly reject all experiments (using spinnig objects) and cosmic observations that run contrary to there theories. This is not good science.
Where are they published?
Then this "real motion" you speak of is no less illusory than the "apparent motion". There is no reason I should prefer the frame in which planetary motion is wavelike over the frame in which it is elliptical, and vice versa.What's the difference? If it is "apparent" to everyone, then in what sense can anyone say that it is not "real"?
The 'apparent motion' of the planets is orbital, the 'real motion' is a complicated wave pattern. At no priod of time does any planet actually complete an orbit in space; but the 'apparent' motion relative to the Sun is an orbit. Orbits are apparent motion, waves are real motion.
That is not what I was objecting to. What I meant is that all field theories of fundamental interactions are relativistic.Patantly false. The results apply to weak, strong, and gravitational interactions as well.
I should have written that the graviton is the only particle not subject to the electromagnetic force.
I would need to see the article. I have never heard of anyone directly measuring the "speed" of subatomic particles. Also, what exactly do you mean by "strong force field"? Do you mean the field of the "strong force" or a "strong" EM field? (Either way, I think you're wrong, but it would help to be on the same page).'C' does not apply within a strong force field. According to a report in SciAm attempts to measure the speed of bosons within a strong force field were 'inconclusive' but the report continued with the statement that "there are some reasons to believe that it is about 94 miles per second".
Sorry, I get so many emails and private messages from independent theorists such as yourself that I can't keep track of them all. I won't make any more promises that I cannot keep.Given that the speed of light varies???
That is hardly "given". You refer to experimental results and to your website, but if you could give me links to both that would help.
You promised to review my website and get back to me about three years ago (on two seperate occasions!). All members websites can be accessed through the 'Members List". Click on 'Members' > E > elas > www. I have been official rebuked for repeating my site address on Physics Forum, I was accused of advertising by one forum mentor.
You answered your own question immediately after asking it.Does not the speed of light vary in harmony with time in that clocks slow down when acelerated?. True in all times 'C' is constant but times are not costant relative to one another at different points in space.
No, the speed of light does not vary in harmony with time. Time and space vary in such a way as to be in harmony with an invariant speed of light.