If, as Professor Cahill states in the article, definitive results that the speed of light is not constant have been obtained, then I do not understand why Professor Cahill has not submitted them? Where are they? Fearing being shouted down is insufficient reason. The other scientists mentioned in the article state specifically that those results do not exist or they have not seen them. Yet the greatest support is that coming fromn CERN. That speaks LOUDLY.


>>>If you were to write a computer simulation of the universe based on special relativity, you would only be simulating the universe according to one observer.
>>>
>>>In order to reproduce the measurements of another observer a whole other simulation would have to be run in addition to original.
>>>
>>>That could be seen as a weakness of special relativity. In other words, an open problem for scientists is how to write a single computer simulation of a universe that accounts for the relativistic measurements of all observers.
>>
>>Mike,
>>
>>The current issue of Scientific American has an article about black holes that suggests that there may a preferred frame of reference and that special relativity is only an approximation of reality.
>>
>>Very interesting article.
>
>Yep. This one deserves some attention too:
>
>http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17159653-13762,00.html
>
>Reg, in my opinion, is the front runner for a "next big something" as opposed to string theory or loop quantum gravity.