First of all I am not trying to convince you of anything. It is more like I am trying to convince myself that I can make a rational argument to support what I hope is true.

So then, second of all, the speed of light is not a constant. The researchers across the street from me at MIT and down the road at Harvard have practically stopped the speed of light, and it is accepted scientifically.

Thirdly, editors most often are not the experts. That is why there is peer review. If the editors were peers, they would be doing research, not editing.

But I want you to admit that you were wrong in your presumption that the publication was in some journal without scientific credibility.

And another question. What is your evidence that the scientific community finds the research to be false. Give me a reference that rejects that research on the basis of its own research.