Gamma demystified

On Aug 27, 2:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

You were claiming that long ago

I have claimed this, and will continue to claim it, because a) the experiments
DO show that, and b) the Lorentz transform is an essential aspect of SR.

Your experimental results also support all the infinite transforms
that the null results of the MMX indicate. You have proven nothing
about the validity of the Lorentz transform until you prove what the
Lorentz transform stands out apart from the rest that is the symmetric
mutual time dilation ordeal. shrug

until you were pointed out that SR has
thoroughly predicted the mutual time dilation due to it satisfying
relative simultaneity, and no experiments have definitely shown so
this unique prediction of SR.

The fact that one particular aspect of SR (mutual time dilation) is not amenable
to testing via current technology does not affect the validity of SR,

Oh, yes, it does. You cannot say a particular grain of sand has a
special property. shrug

or its
structure. A large number of other aspects of SR are amenable to testing, have
been tested, and are KNOWN to be consistent with the predictions of SR -- that
is what makes it an excellent model within its domain.

All the other infinite transforms that satisfy the null results of the
MMX also pass. This does not say the Lorentz transform is the only
valid one. shrug

You need to learn what science is. Your statements here show a VERY confused and
incorrect understanding of science.

You are the one who is confused. All the other transforms do not
satisfy the principle of relativity. You just happened to pick one
that does. It only does after a mathematical mistake by Poincare. Do
you see the seriousness in the situation? shrug

He sees that your mathematical skill is on par with Michelson’s but no
more. It is no wonder that you are left with this confused state as
Michelson was. shrug

In the meantime, you ought to be arrested for crime against science on
spreading lies to promote the religious nature of SR and GR.

It is you who spreads lies (e.g. right there above).

Hey, you are the one who picks out a particular grain and sand and
calls it divine. You refuse to give sound reasons on why you pick
that particular grain of sand. shrug

There is no "religious
nature" of SR or GR, there is just a large body of experimental evidence that
they are excellent models of the world we inhabit, within their respective
domains.

The Christian religion is unique because of the resurrection of the
Messiah. Your garbage has no such unique support. shrug

That you and many others around here do not understand this does not
change the basic fact that SR and GR are excellent models within their domains.

They actually do not when one does not religiously believe in them.
All you have to do is to prove the very unique property of SR that all
the other mathematical models that satisfy the null results of the MMX
do not. Once again, that is the symmetric mutual time dilation
ordeal. If you can prove this mutual time dilation, I (not He) will
be saying hallelujah to SR. In the meantime, He will be asking you to
provide the validity of SR as science demands. shrug

On Aug 27, 2:20 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Mutual time dilation can be tested.

Explain how, please. Be specific, and do not require unobtanium or instruments
impossible with current technology.

Michelson deeply believed in the Aether and successfully came up with
ingenious experimentations attempting to prove the existence of the
Aether. The null results of the MMX gave confusions. He has no doubt
that if Michelson were warned about the confused results, he would
have taken up the challenge to prove the validity of known science
anyway. shrug

Similarly, you are also an experimental physicist who believes in the
nonsense of relative simultaneity just because there is no other
avenue that your shallow mind can think of. You should be challenging
yourself to come up with experimentations to justify your belief just
like Michelson did. Instead of Michelson’s conviction, you are afraid
of going through and find out what you believe in would be proven
wrong. Well, you are not alone. All self-styled physicists face the
same dilemma since deep down they knew this is a hopeless endeavor of
supporting SR. shrug

If you are really interested in proving the validity of this mutual
time dilation thingy, you should be the one who is given the life time
chance of proving what you believe is valid, but be warned, which you
may have already known and expected, that the results would be
unpleasant for you. Michelson’s result was a schocker for him, and
these null results would cause a major remodeling of physics. You and
He just disagree on what the results would be. Now, your result is
expected to disprove SR. This would be an unwelcomed awakening just
like Shawn Connery’s character in Zardoz (1974) who found out who
found out the truth after reading the Wizard of Oz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zardoz

On Aug 28, 3:36*am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
there is no such a thing as "mutual time dilation,"
other than both parties accelerating & decelerating
as much in the same quantum of time, trivially,
relative to the "home planet."

------------------
what is your ''quantum time ''
imbecile psycho parrot creep
****en sub mathematician

that is unable to deliver others than
word salads !!!

NEXT
Y.Porat
--------------------

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Aug 27, 2:20 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Mutual time dilation can be tested.

Explain how, please. Be specific, and do not require unobtanium or
instruments
impossible with current technology.

Michelson deeply believed in the Aether and successfully came up with
ingenious experimentations attempting to prove the existence of the
Aether. The null results of the MMX gave confusions. He has no doubt
that if Michelson were warned about the confused results, he would
have taken up the challenge to prove the validity of known science
anyway. shrug

____________________________________
Are you going to answer the question? You claimed there was an experimental
test of mutual time dilation which would show it was wrong.

When asked to describe it, we get the same crank bull**** as ever. There is
no experimental prediction of Relativity which you consider incorrect, and
that includes the "Twin Paradox".

You don't understand relativity; you don't have an alternate theory, you
can't point to a single prediction of SR which you believe incorrect, and
you are apparently completely ignorant of both physics and the scientific
method.

You have nothing to say, which is why your posts say nothing other than you
are a crank.

HTH


Peter Webb


SNIP crank rant

This would be an unwelcomed awakening just
like Shawn Connery’s character in Zardoz (1974) who found out who
found out the truth after reading the Wizard of Oz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zardoz

___________________________________
Sorry, had to leave the above bit in. When asked to describe a physics
experiment, you talk about a movie you once saw which has nothing to do with
physics. This inability to stay on topic is a common sign of a brain injury,
and an almost universal indicator of being an internet crank. Have you in
fact suffered some form of brain injury, perhaps as a result of trauma or
meningitis?

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Aug 27, 2:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

You were claiming that long ago

I have claimed this, and will continue to claim it, because a) the
experiments
DO show that, and b) the Lorentz transform is an essential aspect of SR.

Your experimental results also support all the infinite transforms
that the null results of the MMX indicate. You have proven nothing
about the validity of the Lorentz transform until you prove what the
Lorentz transform stands out apart from the rest that is the symmetric
mutual time dilation ordeal. shrug

_____________________________
"Stands out apart"? WTF is that supposed to mean? Why don't you use the
correct terms? If your argument is somehow based on the scientific method
(and I am struggling to make any sense out of it), could you at least use
terms from the scientific method?

until you were pointed out that SR has
thoroughly predicted the mutual time dilation due to it satisfying
relative simultaneity, and no experiments have definitely shown so
this unique prediction of SR.

The fact that one particular aspect of SR (mutual time dilation) is not
amenable
to testing via current technology does not affect the validity of SR,

Oh, yes, it does. You cannot say a particular grain of sand has a
special property. shrug

____________________________________
I don't say one grain of sand has a special property. "Time dilation" occurs
equally to all "grains of sand". You are the one who claims that something
(some "grain of sand") does not experience time dilation equally. Yet
despite repeated urgings, you cannot identify a single prediction of SR
which you believe incorrect, or a single experiment which would show (as you
so clumsily put it) that some grains have different properties with respect
to time dilation.

or its
structure. A large number of other aspects of SR are amenable to testing,
have
been tested, and are KNOWN to be consistent with the predictions of SR --
that
is what makes it an excellent model within its domain.

All the other infinite transforms that satisfy the null results of the
MMX also pass. This does not say the Lorentz transform is the only
valid one. shrug

_____________________________________________
But that isn't your claim. Your claim is that SR is wrong. But you never say
how. That is because you don't understand Relativity, and so try to avoid
saying anything specific about it which would demonstrate your ignorance. As
you know nothing about SR, you don't want to discuss SR, you just want to
say it is wrong and then run away and not answer questions.


You need to learn what science is. Your statements here show a VERY
confused and
incorrect understanding of science.

You are the one who is confused. All the other transforms do not
satisfy the principle of relativity. You just happened to pick one
that does. It only does after a mathematical mistake by Poincare. Do
you see the seriousness in the situation? shrug

_____________________________________
No. How is this supposed to show SR is wrong, exactly?


He sees that your mathematical skill is on par with Michelson’s but no
more. It is no wonder that you are left with this confused state as
Michelson was. shrug
______________________________________
But you know better? OK. here is a cvery simple physics question. Two twins,
one travels to a star 10 light years away and back at a constant 0.9c. What
are their relative ages when re-united?



In the meantime, you ought to be arrested for crime against science on
spreading lies to promote the religious nature of SR and GR.

It is you who spreads lies (e.g. right there above).

Hey, you are the one who picks out a particular grain and sand and
calls it divine. You refuse to give sound reasons on why you pick
that particular grain of sand. shrug

_________________________________
What "grain of sand"? What do you think you are talking about? Nobody else
mentioned grains of sand, and nor does the scientific method. You do know
that we can't read your mind and determine what grain of sand you are
talking about, or even where SR mentions sand.


There is no "religious
nature" of SR or GR, there is just a large body of experimental evidence
that
they are excellent models of the world we inhabit, within their respective
domains.

The Christian religion is unique because of the resurrection of the
Messiah. Your garbage has no such unique support. shrug
________________________________________
Crank stuff, when cornered change the subject, you picked religion. Run
away, little crank.



That you and many others around here do not understand this does not
change the basic fact that SR and GR are excellent models within their
domains.

They actually do not when one does not religiously believe in them.
All you have to do is to prove the very unique property of SR that all
the other mathematical models that satisfy the null results of the MMX
do not.

_____________________________________
No, actually the scientific method requires it to correctly predict
experimental outcomes, which it does. What you have written above is
complete bull****; there is no requirement in the scientific method to
disprove alternate theories.


Once again, that is the symmetric mutual time dilation
ordeal. If you can prove this mutual time dilation, I (not He) will
be saying hallelujah to SR. In the meantime, He will be asking you to
provide the validity of SR as science demands. shrug

______________________________________
As science demands? You mean that the theory should correctly model
experimental results? It obviously does. What demands does 'science" make
which SR has not met? What requirement of the "scientific method"? And
please, don't try and change the topic to the properties of sand, or a movie
you once saw, or any of the many other crank techniques you use to try and
avoid questions which show you are wrong.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Aug 27, 2:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
I have claimed this, and will continue to claim it, because a) the experiments
DO show that, and b) the Lorentz transform is an essential aspect of SR.

Your experimental results also support all the infinite transforms
that the null results of the MMX indicate. You have proven nothing
about the validity of the Lorentz transform until you prove what the
Lorentz transform stands out apart from the rest that is the symmetric
mutual time dilation ordeal.

As I said, you have a warped and INCORRECT understanding of what science
actually is. You also have rather serious flaws in your reading and logic -- I
have NEVER claimed that the Lorentz transforms "stand out apart from the rest";
indeed I have often stated that there is an infinite class of theories that are
equivalent to SR in that they are experimentally indistinguishable from SR.


The fact that one particular aspect of SR (mutual time dilation) is not amenable
to testing via current technology does not affect the validity of SR,

Oh, yes, it does.

No, it doesn't. This is a limitation of current technology, not any sort of
"problem" with the theory.


A large number of other aspects of SR are amenable to testing, have
been tested, and are KNOWN to be consistent with the predictions of SR -- that
is what makes it an excellent model within its domain.

All the other infinite transforms that satisfy the null results of the
MMX also pass. This does not say the Lorentz transform is the only
valid one.

Sure. I have never disputed that. But all the other transforms that "pass" are
EXPERIMENTALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from the Lorentz transforms. That is, the
Lorentz transforms are part of a good model (SR), which is what I have been
saying. Your claims that they must be unique are just plain wrong -- that is NOT
how science works; nor is it how logic works, if you would read what I write
ACCURATELY.


Hey, you are the one who picks out a particular grain and sand and
calls it divine. You refuse to give sound reasons on why you pick
that particular grain of sand.

This is just plain not true. You use "grain of sand" to mean one of the theories
that are not refuted by the experimental record. I do not consider any of them
"divine", I merely point out that all of them except SR have theoretical
difficulties: they do not satisfy the PoR, and they are not suitable for
generalizing SR to other theories (e.g. GR, QED, and the standard model).

Until you learn how to read accurately, and how to apply valid logic, there is
no point in continuing.


Tom Roberts

On Aug 28, 10:01*am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Aug 27, 2:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
I have claimed this, and will continue to claim it, because a) the experiments
DO show that, and b) the Lorentz transform is an essential aspect of SR.

Your experimental results also support all the infinite transforms
that the null results of the MMX indicate. *You have proven nothing
about the validity of the Lorentz transform until you prove what the
Lorentz transform stands out apart from the rest that is the symmetric
mutual time dilation ordeal.

As I said, you have a warped and INCORRECT understanding of what science
actually is. You also have rather serious flaws in your reading and logic -- I
have NEVER claimed that the Lorentz transforms "stand out apart from the rest";
indeed I have often stated that there is an infinite class of theories that are
equivalent to SR in that they are experimentally indistinguishable from SR.

The fact that one particular aspect of SR (mutual time dilation) is not amenable
to testing via current technology does not affect the validity of SR,

Oh, yes, it does.

No, it doesn't. This is a limitation of current technology, not any sort of
"problem" with the theory.

A large number of other aspects of SR are amenable to testing, have
been tested, and are KNOWN to be consistent with the predictions of SR -- that
is what makes it an excellent model within its domain.

All the other infinite transforms that satisfy the null results of the
MMX also pass. *This does not say the Lorentz transform is the only
valid one.

Sure. I have never disputed that. But all the other transforms that "pass" are
EXPERIMENTALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from the Lorentz transforms. That is, the
Lorentz transforms are part of a good model (SR), which is what I have been
saying. Your claims that they must be unique are just plain wrong -- that is NOT
how science works; nor is it how logic works, if you would read what I write
ACCURATELY.

Hey, you are the one who picks out a particular grain and sand and
calls it divine. *You refuse to give sound reasons on why you pick
that particular grain of sand.

This is just plain not true. You use "grain of sand" to mean one of the theories
that are not refuted by the experimental record. I do not consider any of them
"divine", I merely point out that all of them except SR have theoretical
difficulties: they do not satisfy the PoR, and they are not suitable for
generalizing SR to other theories (e.g. GR, QED, and the standard model).

Until you learn how to read accurately, and how to apply valid logic, there is
no point in continuing.

Tom Roberts

Aether displacement unifies SR, GR, and QM (pilot-wave theory).

Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to
consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of
ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of
relativity."

"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether
which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in
taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its
immobility."

The aether of relativity is mobile. The mobility of the ether is the
state of displacement of the ether. The state of the ether as defined
by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in
neighboring places is the state of displacement of the ether.

Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see the state of
displacement of the aether as determined by its connections with the
Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring places.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The reason for the results of the Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale-
Pearson, Sagnac Effect, and all of the other aether experiments is
because the state of the aether is the state of displacement of the
aether.

Wave-particle duality: A moving particle has an associated aether
displacement wave.

"Peter Webb" wrote in
u:

[snip all]

Peter would it kill you to learn to quote properly?

On Aug 28, 4:41*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
Your experimental results also support all the infinite transforms
that thenull resultsof the MMX indicate. *You have proven nothing
about the validity of theLorentz transformuntil you prove what the
Lorentz transformstands out apart from the rest that is the symmetric
mutualtime dilationordeal.

As I said, you have a warped and INCORRECT understanding of what science
actually is.

Only to you. *shrug

You also have rather serious flaws in your reading and logic -- I
have NEVER claimed that the Lorentz transforms "stand out apart from the rest";
indeed I have often stated that there is an infinite class of theories that are
equivalent to SR in that they are experimentally indistinguishable from SR.

This is bull****! *If indeed you have come to peace with all the
infinite other transforms that would also satisfy thenull resultsof
the MMX, you will realize that all these do not support the principle
of relativity. *TheLorentz transformis the only that does. *Even the
Lorentz transform’s closest one, Larmor’s transform, in general does
not satisfy theprinciple of relativityas well. *The only incidence
where theLorentz transformis the same as Larmor’s transform is when
all these two observers move in parallel relative to the absolute
frame of reference. *Anyhow, as someone who has been working in the
field for many decades, do you not see the vast difference between
something that satisfy theprinciple of relativityand something that
does not?

It is more likely that you did not know about all these infinite
transforms that also satisfy thenull resultsof the MMX until reading
His posts. *Again, none of these infinite numbers of transforms
supports the principle of relative. *You still are clueless as what
the requirements should be to satisfy thenull resultsof the MMX.
shrug

The fact that one particular aspect of SR (mutualtime dilation) is not amenable
to testing via current technology does not affect the validity of SR,

Oh, yes, it does.

No, it doesn't. This is a limitation of current technology, not any sort of
"problem" with the theory.

So, the current technology does not allow you to tell if the principle
of relativity is valid or not. *How the heck do you believe in the
Lorentz transformthat does satisfy theprinciple of relativitywhile
all others do not?

All the other infinite transforms that satisfy thenull resultsof the
MMX also pass. *This does not say theLorentz transformis the only
valid one.

Sure. I have never disputed that. But all the other transforms that "pass" are
EXPERIMENTALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from the Lorentz transforms. That is, the
Lorentz transforms are part of a good model (SR), which is what I have been
saying. Your claims that they must be unique are just plain wrong -- that is NOT
how science works; nor is it how logic works, if you would read what I write
ACCURATELY.

Again, only theLorentz transformsatisfies the principle of
relativity, and all others do not. *If they are experimentally
indistinguishable, why do you say one is valid over the others? *In
doing so, you have decided if theprinciple of relativityis valid or
not; you have banished the Aether in inny, minny, mighty, mo
decision. *Gee! *Do you really think that is how science works?

Hey, you are the one who picks out a particular grain and sand and
calls it divine. *You refuse to give sound reasons on why you pick
that particular grain of sand.

This is just plain not true. You use "grain of sand" to mean one of the theories
that are not refuted by the experimental record.

The Voigt transform does not satisfy theprinciple of relativity.
Larmor’s transform does not satisfy theprinciple of relativityin
general. *Lorentz’s infinite numbers of transforms do not satisfy the
principle of relativity. *They all satisfy thenull resultsof the
MMX. *They all exhibit some forms oftime dilation. *Just what do you
mean by they are refuted by experiments?

I do not consider any of them
"divine", I merely point out that all of them except SR have theoretical
difficulties: they do not satisfy the PoR,

Let’s see. *TheLorentz transformis only valid when the two observers
of Larmor’s transform move in parallel relative to the absolute frame
of reference. *Only at that incidence, theprinciple of relativity
holds. *Otherwise, theprinciple of relativitydoes not hold in
general. *shrug

and they are not suitable for
generalizing SR to other theories (e.g. GR, QED, and the standard model).

Just because a hypothesis works better into other conjectures, it does
not validate this hypothesis. *This is not how science works. *You
need to perform experimentations. *Why all of a sudden, as an
experimental physicist, are you suggesting no experimentations are
needed to support more hypotheses and more conjectures?

Until you learn how to read accurately, and how to apply valid logic, there is
no point in continuing.

Fine, then. *The record shows you are trying to play God by deciding
theprinciple of relativityis valid without any experimentation.
Michelson’s work was monumental. *Unfortunately, the man was weak in
mathematics. *He never realized he actually had proven the existence
of the absolute frame of reference. *It is even more unfortunate for
the development of physics. *TheLorentz transformwas created through
a mathematical mistake, and the idiots back then did not and still do
not realize this mistake. *The mathematics only involves algebra. *The
self-styled physicists should be very ashamed. *shrug

Koobee Wublee, you have got it right in the fact that Michelson was
the first to come up with the evidence of a one-way instantaneous,
absolute frame of reference, without actually recognizing it.
Remember, Michelson expected to measure a difference. When there was
not one, and Michelson beyond any other would have wished there to be
one, a null result was discovered. Well, we had already gotten used to
the idea of light being c, and something as traveling- we only had ONE
explanation that could exist- time dilation and length contraction.
If we accept all that is "seen" as having a "speed limit" then
everything physically is written in stone and we don't have to think,
just plug in the numbers. Finally, I believe that "seeing light" is
not dictated by a "speed limit", on the contrary, I believe that
"seeing light" is a limited process only by size and distance.

On Aug 28, 9:30*pm, John Gogo wrote:
On Aug 28, 4:41*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:









Tom Roberts wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:
Your experimental results also support all the infinite transforms
that thenull resultsof the MMX indicate. *You have proven nothing
about the validity of theLorentz transformuntil you prove what the
Lorentz transformstands out apart from the rest that is the symmetric
mutualtime dilationordeal.

As I said, you have a warped and INCORRECT understanding of what science
actually is.

Only to you. *shrug

You also have rather serious flaws in your reading and logic -- I
have NEVER claimed that theLorentz transforms"stand out apart from the rest";
indeed I have often stated that there is an infinite class of theories that are
equivalent to SR in that they are experimentally indistinguishable from SR.

This is bull****! *If indeed you have come to peace with all the
infinite other transforms that would also satisfy thenull resultsof
the MMX, you will realize that all these do not support the principle
of relativity. *TheLorentz transformis the only that does. *Even the
Lorentz transform’s closest one, Larmor’s transform, in general does
not satisfy theprinciple of relativityas well. *The only incidence
where theLorentz transformis the same as Larmor’s transform is when
all these two observers move in parallel relative to the absolute
frame of reference. *Anyhow, as someone who has been working in the
field for many decades, do you not see the vast difference between
something that satisfy theprinciple of relativityand something that
does not?

It is more likely that you did not know about all these infinite
transforms that also satisfy thenull resultsof the MMX until reading
His posts. *Again, none of these infinite numbers of transforms
supports the principle of relative. *You still are clueless as what
the requirements should be to satisfy thenull resultsof the MMX.
shrug

The fact that one particular aspect of SR (mutualtime dilation) is not amenable
to testing via current technology does not affect the validity of SR,

Oh, yes, it does.

No, it doesn't. This is a limitation of current technology, not any sort of
"problem" with the theory.

So, the current technology does not allow you to tell if the principle
of relativity is valid or not. *How the heck do you believe in the
Lorentz transformthat does satisfy theprinciple of relativitywhile
all others do not?

All the other infinite transforms that satisfy thenull resultsof the
MMX also pass. *This does not say theLorentz transformis the only
valid one.

Sure. I have never disputed that. But all the other transforms that "pass" are
EXPERIMENTALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from theLorentz transforms. That is, the
Lorentz transformsare part of a good model (SR), which is what I have been
saying. Your claims that they must be unique are just plain wrong -- that is NOT
how science works; nor is it howlogic works, if you would read what I write
ACCURATELY.

Again, only theLorentz transformsatisfies the principle of
relativity, and all others do not. *If they are experimentally
indistinguishable, why do you say one is valid over the others? *In
doing so, you have decided if theprinciple of relativityis valid or
not; you have banished the Aether in inny, minny, mighty, mo
decision. *Gee! *Do you really think that is how science works?

Hey, you are the one who picks out a particular grain and sand and
calls it divine. *You refuse to give sound reasons on why you pick
that particular grain of sand.

This is just plain not true. You use "grain of sand" to mean one of the theories
that are not refuted by the experimental record.

The Voigt transform does not satisfy theprinciple of relativity.
Larmor’s transform does not satisfy theprinciple of relativityin
general. *Lorentz’s infinite numbers of transforms do not satisfy the
principle of relativity. *They all satisfy thenull resultsof the
MMX. *They all exhibit some forms oftime dilation. *Just what do you
mean by they are refuted by experiments?

I do not consider any of them
"divine", I merely point out that all of them except SR have theoretical
difficulties: they do not satisfy the PoR,

Let’s see. *TheLorentz transformis only valid when the two observers
of Larmor’s transform move in parallel relative to the absolute frame
of reference. *Only at that incidence, theprinciple of relativity
holds. *Otherwise, theprinciple of relativitydoes not hold in
general. *shrug

and they are not suitable for
generalizing SR to other theories (e.g. GR, QED, and the standard model).

Just because a hypothesis works better into other conjectures, it does
not validate this hypothesis. *This is not how science works. *You
need to perform experimentations. *Why all of a sudden, as an
experimental physicist, are you suggesting no experimentations are
needed to support more hypotheses and more conjectures?

Until you learn how to read accurately, and how to apply valid logic, there is
no point in continuing.

Fine, then. *The record shows you are trying to play God by deciding
theprinciple of relativityis valid without any experimentation.
Michelson’s work was monumental. *Unfortunately, the man was weak in
mathematics. *He never realized he actually had proven the existence
of the absolute frame of reference. *It is even more unfortunate for
the development of physics. *TheLorentz transformwas created through
a mathematical mistake, and the idiots back then did not and still do
not realize this mistake. *The mathematics only involves algebra. *The
self-styled physicists should be very ashamed. *shrug

Koobee Wublee, you have got it right in the fact that Michelson was
the first to come up with the evidence of a one-way instantaneous,
absolute frame of reference, without actually recognizing it.
Remember, Michelson expected to measure a difference. *When there was
not one, and Michelson beyond any other would have wished there to be
one, a null result was discovered. Well, we had already gotten used to
the idea of light being c, and something as traveling- we only had ONE
explanation that could exist-time dilation and length contraction.
If we accept all that is "seen" as having a "speed limit" then
everything physically is written in stone and we don't have to think,
just plug in the numbers. *Finally, I believe that "seeing light" is
not dictated by a "speed limit", on the contrary, I believe that
"seeing light" is a limited process only by size and distance.

Michelson believed in being able to "see" relativity. When there was
none, this distressed Michelson to no end.