[Wavytone]

Just because a particular view is popular does not mean it is entirely valid. Starting with Ptolemy vs the vast majority who believed in a flat earth (as some still do). Copernicus and Galileo vs the Catholic Church, and many others. Charles Darwin and Stephen Hawking, vs religions (all of them).

In physics a hypothesis that A is related in some way to some things B C and D means you're on the way to a useful, rational expianation of observed phenomena and it can be used to make more predictions that can be measured experimentally to test whether the hypothesis is valid. This hypothesis doesn't surprise me at all and its nice to see it has a direct experimental basis (LLRE) and that another experiment has been devised to test it (these clocks).

Einsteins postulate that the speed of light was a constant and invariant with time was always troublesome in the sense that it is more of an assumption, one that worked very well, but for no particularly good reason - yet no-one had been able to disprove the assumption was incorrect by direct experimental evidence - apart from the LLRE measurements. And a 12 sigma discrepancy regarding the moons age isn't just a teeny bit wrong, it basically means the result was totally, blatantly flat-out wrong.

What has been confirmed many times over is relativity - that the speed of light is the same as measured in all frames of reference, and all that flows from that with respect to time dilation and so-forth. Which also shows that the speed of light - and the local measurement of time - are interrelated in another way.