I've been reading about EM waves again, and about known phenomena affecting them (spectral shift, time dilation, etc.). There is one constant between all articles and books I read: most physicists and mathematicians are going through acrobatics to maintain that C is constant for all observers. I don't agree with that at all - again, just because we haven't been able to create/detect a physical event that occurs at a speed faster (or slower) than the speed of light, that doesn't mean it isn't possible.

In time dilation theory, since, by today's rules, C should be constant for both observers moving in directions opposite to each other, it is time that 'changes' for each observer. Yet were we to consider that it is possible to emit a photon at a speed greater than light, and we were to add the velocity of the light source (relative to the observer) to the constant C, there would be no need for time dilation. Yet modern physics insists that this is not possible!

Spectral shift (redshift) would also explain a particle's ability to travel at speeds faster and slower than C. If a star moving away from us shot a light particle in our direction, it is fact that the wavelength of that photon would appear lower (redder) on the light spectrum. Yet modern theory calculate that that shift occurs because of a change wavelength based on the constant C. What if, instead, we calculate the frequency of the photon relative to itself (its own constant C), subtract the receding star's velocity (relative to our own) from C? If a green-light photon's frequency was divided by its speed relative to our own (say, .98 C), the math would still work out - the photon's frequency would appear slower from our point of observation (thus 'redder'), as would its wavelength appear longer, but there would be no need to 'maintain' C.

I'm not sure of modern science's ability to detect the 'C speed' of particles with any accuracy - all we seem to be able to do for now is measure frequency and wavelength, and that only from our point of observation and our own of the 'constant C'. It would make things so much simpler if we could calculate particle interaction first by calculating the behaviour (frequency) of each particle relative to itself (compared to its own constant C), then adjusting based on the relative 'C speed' of both objects. No more need for time dilation theories. I can again argue that instead of maintaining our 'biased' method of measure (constant C, time from our point of observation, our wavelength instead of frequency to avoid touching ), by measuring a particle's energy level compared to its own constant C, that we can almost take time out of our equations altogether.