Sorry to hijack this topic, but the original post WAS about the constancy of c.

I would just like to point out to the original poster that the hard evidence that exists to support the constancy of c may be flawed.

I have been struggling with this recently while checking out VSL theory:

http://frontwheeldrive.com/joao_magueijo.htmlHowever, I find that there exists a setting where both SR and VSL fit, which involves a bit of a paradox.

A relative contstant? Is that possible?

VSL speculates that c was faster at the beginning of the universe. How could this be and ALSO include SR with a constant c?

I believe the relativity of c has to do with observers at different time-energies. relative yet constant.

an observer at the beginning of the universe measures c and gets 300,000km sec.

an observer today measures c and gets the same results

an observer today measures c based on light being emitted from the beginning of the universe and gets the smae results.

**now the interesting part**

an observer today measures the SAME burst of light that the observer at the beginning of the universe measured and gets a result greater than c.

(this is a philisophical discussion at this point)

Why?

If everything is decaying at the same rate (t), then t becomes the constant and c becomes relative.

However, basd on SR, we know that t is relative as well, which again makes the paradox of the relative constant. Observable time is relative, yet universal time is absolute?