Bufofrog

Sure. The speed of sound is not invariant. You need to look up the meaning of invariant. Your argument is that the speed of light is not invariant. IOW you think that an inertial observer should measure the speed of light as c + v or c - v, where v is the speed of the inertial observer. That is not true, all experiments show the speed of light is invariant, IOW the speed of light is always measured as c for all inertial observers. So there really is no argument, because experimentation falsifies you proposal - end of story

Do you have any evidence in support of this?

It was created as a power supply for the machines. I'm not sure why the machines didn't just use cows or pigs instead of humans. There would be a much lower chance of cows revolting against the machines. Just saying...

That does not make any sense to me. Could you explain a bit more how waves cause the curvature of spacetime?

I believe you have been informed several time that the invariance of light has been tested. I also believe you have been informed multiple times that the term is invariance not constancy. You seem to be trying very hard to ignore all attempts to help you.

No. It is not an exception. It seems like you are not really knowledgeable about the BBT or red shift. Before trying to replace a theory one should understand the theory.

EM radiation from all other galaxies is not just red shifted, some galaxies are blue shifted. That would seem to falsify your idea.

You don't actually have a theory. Being very gracious, I would say you have a hypothesis. That being said I would further say your hypothesis has been disproven by experimentation.

It is wrong, because the sun will not become a supernova. No, it is about changes in a populations genetic makeup over time.

I wouldn't think that would be the case. In the universe you are describing there would be equal amounts of mass around the photons. IOW the strength of gravitation attraction in front of the photons direction of travel would be the same as behind it, so there would be no red shift.

You keep saying this and everyone keeps telling that you're wrong, so this not very productive. The speed of light is always measured at c, so it is not possible that it is effected by the relative or absolute velocity of the inertial frame of the experiment.

You're right, thanks for the correction.

That is not evidence in support of your claim, that is evidence that if you are struggling to breath it is also going to be hard to sleep.

Correct, an inertial observer will always measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c. I think you got it now

More than just absolute motion you cannot perform any experiment in a closed room that will give you a hint about your motion, assuming an inertial frame.

Hope he has a good retirement!

Are you saying that you think some physicists would think that the 2 light pulses would not arrive at the point simultaneously for an observer in that lab frame?

Do you have some sort of parentheses fetish?

I would recommend you get a degree in environmental engineering . The pay is higher and the work is more interesting.

It doesn't matter. The point is both of the light pulses S1 and S2 will move at c relative to the observer on the ship, v never is considered.

Discussing how to make explosives on an open forum seems like a bad idea IMO.

The OP apparently has some phobia about suffocating in their sleep.

Then the article is wrong. Glad we cleared that up.

The picture is just a way to represent the field, there are no actual lines or groves.

If an electron and a photon were just 2 points the chances of them 'hitting' each other would be essentially zero. So clearly the picture in your head of this interaction is incorrect.