Sorry guys, it's been a while since I read about the atomic clock, I don't know why I thought it had anything to with measuring the speed of light. It is based on the decay wavelength of a Cesium 133 atom, It's a glorified quartz clock, just much more accurate.
But my original premise still stands, if light can be attracted by the gravity from a black hole, then light is not a constant.
If light can be stopped and stored:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/18/us/scientists-bring-light-to-full-stop-hold-it-then-send-it-on-its-way.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/13/science/sci-light13
...then speed light up:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/jul/20/technology2
...then the speed of light is not a constant.
So much for accurately dating the age of the universe with lightyears.

I have read articles, though I can't find them now, that light travels much faster just after the big bang. But all I can find at the moment is that that universe itself expanded faster than the speed of light

I didn't say that quantum mechanics or relativity didn't work, just that they might have been thrown off just enough that they are un-unifiable, possibly because of scientists' preoccupation with the speed of light being constant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoaS6Tt6ODY&feature=relmfu

My friend had a TARDIS, but some timelord with the cheesy name Doctor stole it. Luckily my friend used his key-fob to fry the camouflager circuit before it completely dematerialized.

If anyone has seen an old british blue police/telephone booth flying or in an odd place, give my friend a call, as a reward he has an extensive antique collection as well as a couple of tame extinct species.

Yesterday!? It's not still there is it?

I would go back and kill the young Amschel Moses Rothschild, before he had his 5 sons, or kill Darwin as his theory was the justification for the deaths of at least 100 million people, or just Karl Marx. I haven't decided yet.
Then I would probably just stay there.

Thanks all,
I'll see what forums I can get into.

You know, they have been trying for a "Unified Field Theory" for about 100 years, and science has become more about getting funding than it is about actually doing science.
I'm not a scientist, just a casual observer, but it seems to me that someone somewhere maybe in Quantum Mechanics, maybe in Relativity, forgot to carry the 2 and threw the whole thing off just enough that you wouldn't see it but you still wouldn't get the answers you are looking for.
The speed of light is not a constant, it has been slowed to 35 MPH and then stopped in a laboratory. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1124540.stm
Early methods of measuring the speed of light showed a progressive slowing down, until the 60s when the atomic clock became the new standard, the funny thing about the atomic clock is that it uses light to measure the speed of light, so now you have a rubber ruler.
What would this do for Relativity?

Thanks guys.
Changed the picture, and reworked the info.

Not getting a whole lot of view and very few responses, mind taking a look at my profile and tell me whats wrong?