Your level of understanding of physics is truly atrocious.

*Oh, once again, you qouted a real scientists but you failed to understand his work. The differences are too small to infer anything useful and there are too many people working on this.*The discovery made by Dr. John Webb is pretty simple to understand (with your exception, of course):

He used the Keck Telescope in Hawaii to look at the northern sky, and a very large telescope in Chile which looks out on the southern sky.

And when he looked at his bar codes, he discovered something totally unexpected.

This is what a cloud of gas would look like if we were looking at it in the laboratory on Earth.

When we look in the Southern hemisphere, something slightly different -- this line has moved towards the red end of the spectrum, and another line here has moved towards the blue end of the spectrum.

So there's a change in the relative spacing of the spectral lines.

It looks slightly different in the Southern hemisphere.

If you now go to the Northern hemisphere, the exact opposite direction on the sky, this line has now shifted, instead of to the right, to the left, and this line has shifted to the right instead of to the left.

So the patterns now look different.

It's a little bit as if you're in a supermarket drunk, looking at the bar code, and the pattern has changed.

These shifting bar codes can only be caused by one thing -- something that seems impossible A change in one of the fundamental laws of physics.

When we first saw the results, it was hard to accept that they were correct.

What we found is when you look in one direction on the sky, the strength of the electromagnetic force appears to decrease with increasing distance from us, and when you look in exactly the opposite direction on the sky, the converse is true.

The strength of electromagnetism seems to increase as you move to greater distance.

Electromagnetism is the force that is transmitted by light.

So if the strength of electromagnetism is not constant, it means that the properties of light itself are changing.

The differences ARE NOT SMALL at all, contrary to your bizarre assertion.

*Why can't we go beyond the speed of light? *

If you did then the math breaks down (you get imaginary quantities in many calculations).With the fake Heaviside-Lorentz equations you do get just that.

However, using the ORIGINAL J.C. MAXWELL SET OF ETHER EQUATIONS, which are invariant under Galilean transformations, the speed of light can be exceeded quite easily.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1848776#msg1848776"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation. Velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded."

*We know it isn't wrong because it works very well. There are hundreds of real life examples which rely on relativity to work including GPS.*Wrong.

Completely wrong.

Absolutely wrong.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

In the Sagnac experiment, the light speed varied to c + ωr in one direction and c – ωr in the other direction.

**The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.**

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdfpage 8

Because many investigators claim that the

Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the

Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of

that theory with the actual test results is given

below. It will be shown that the effects

calculated under these two theories are of very

different orders of magnitude, and that

therefore the Special Theory is of no value in

trying to explain the effect.

**Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any**

purely Relativistic effect. For example,

considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),

where the rim of the disc was moving with a

velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about

1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac

as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is

smaller by a factor of 10^7. Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc

of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe

shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity

at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This

is an extremely low velocity, being less than

lm per minute.

**In this case the Sagnac effect**

would be 50 billion times larger than the

calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.

The Ruderfer experiment (1961) effectively puts to rest the assertion that relativity has anything to do with GPS satellites:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721