I did examine them and I declare them invalid.
Not once have they actually measured the "relative" speed of light.
by using the proper measurements for relative speed to begin with.
If you wish to prove lightspeed is relative yourself,
Here is a simple experiment to do such.
Have a lightsource that is "at rest" with Earth.
Have a detector that can move fast towards or away from the light
Turn the light source on and then off for 1 total second while the
detector is operating amd moving and find out how long the detector "saw"
It sees less than 1 second when moving towards the light and it
sees the light for more that one second when moving away.
Simple factual proof the speed of the light could not be
constant to all frames and turns out to be relative.
And particle accelerators prove this.
It is not beside the point.
It is the point,
mass is measured that way.
You can not just "measure" mass by determining a "wieght"
you must move the mass and determine the energy you get from
such mass at the "known" speed you used.
mass does not vary, the energy does and the energy variance
is caused by the variance in speed.
The mass is invrariant no matter how fast it is moving.
The way I am using is the proper way to measure mass.
It is the only "non variable" method to measure mass.
Not completely bogus, just misinterpreted way too much.
Actually I am not dismissing most of the science that has been done,
I am only rejecting the science that uses "variable time and variable
I simply am sticking to the science that uses single standards like
science was invented to do. (use single standards to find variables)
not the other way around.
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory