[ergocoder]

Thank you for writing this and introducing the word axiomatic. I was using the word convention as something that is defined and unquestionable. It's an assumption we base all of our physics equation on. Axiomatic might capture the meaning better.

This means, and I assume, we can also base all of our equations on say "energy is not conserved and always increase by 1 Joule", though the physics equations might be much more complex.

Pro-science folks are too enthusiastic about current science to the point that they become unscientific. Pointing out that these theories/laws/conventions might become invalid in the future is getting downvoted.

Newsflash: physics theories/laws/conventions are getting invalidated all the time.

[deltasixeight]

>This means, and I assume, we can also base all of our equations on say "energy is not conserved and always increase by 1 Joule", though the physics equations might be much more complex.

We can but this won't match with observations. We assume energy is conserved only because our current observations show that it has been conserved thus far.

Referring to the OP article, he's basically writing that the c being the absolute speed limit is not axiomatic. It's not something we just assume to be true. It is a theorem derived from the assumption (aka axiom) that the universe cannot produce inconsistent events.