On Oct 23, 11:10*am, moky wrote:
"I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the
1905 light postulate, that is on the false principle of constancy of
the speed of light. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the
air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest
of contemporary physics."

How do you interpret the fact that Einstein's gravitation has
succesfull experimental results, as you admited yourself ?

I have just explained this. Because Einstein's theory is an
inconsistency. Taken to the extreme, the inconsistency contains "every
sentence of the language":

W. H. Newton-Smith, The rationality of science, Routledge, London,
1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds
for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal
of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is
inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the
following simple argument shows. Let ‘q’ be an arbitrary sentence of
the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means
that we can derive the sentence ‘p and not-p’. From this ‘p’ follows.
And from ‘p’ it follows that ‘p or q’ (if ‘p’ is true then ‘p or q’
will be true no matter whether ‘q’ is true or not). Equally, it
follows from ‘p and not-p’ that ‘not-p’. But ‘not-p’ together with ‘p
or q’ entails ‘q’. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory
we have to admit everything."

Pentcho Valev