On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 8:31:17 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >
> > > Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
> > > here is the details of an example with light:
> > > What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
> > > v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
> > > u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
> > > u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
> > > u= Relativity= c
> > > REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
> > > c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
> > That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)
> >
> > Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
> > is even worse.
>
> The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does, as in the example of the MMX given above.

Your posts are nonsense.

--
Jan

Le 18/09/2023 à 06:02, Sylvia Else a écrit :
> So when observer u measures the speed of that light, he gets c.
>
> Now all you have to do is show, by real experiment (not thought
> experiment) that that is wrong, and you'll get the Nobel prize.
>
> Sylvia.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=9zAnqjTXWGRmKenIUVIE4mtdBE0@jntp>

It has already been done, my dear Sylvia, and the person has already won
the Nobel Prize (1907) for it thanks to a device of his creation called an
"interferometer".
It was Albert Michelson.
Henri Poincaré in France gave the complete explanation (June 1905) with
transformations called "Lorentz transformations".
Today the question no longer arises (except among anti-relativist cranks)
As for the general additions of all speeds, therefore including the speed
of light, and from all angles, we can use Doctor'Hachel's equation, either
in natural form or in vector form.
In natural form, this gives:

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?9zAnqjTXWGRmKenIUVIE4mtdBE0@jntp/Data.Media:1>

in vector form, this gives:

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?9zAnqjTXWGRmKenIUVIE4mtdBE0@jntp/Data.Media:2>

The Hague court (Netherlands) and the Nobel Prize committee, after forty
years of heated debate, today authorize physicists to copy these equations
in their books, and even, admirably, students to use them in their exam
papers. Which was unthinkable just a few months ago...

R.H.

Le 18/09/2023 à 14:56, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 18/09/2023 à 06:02, Sylvia Else a écrit :

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=X120e7xmbF84Z2vYSxNUqoBNoqA@jntp>

> in vector form, this gives:
>
> <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?9zAnqjTXWGRmKenIUVIE4mtdBE0@jntp/Data.Media:2>

En notation positive :

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?X120e7xmbF84Z2vYSxNUqoBNoqA@jntp/Data.Media:1>

> R.H.

R.H.

On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 9:22:07 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >
> > > Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
> > > here is the details of an example with light:
> > > What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
> > > v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
> > > u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
> > > u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
> > > u= Relativity= c
> > > REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
> > > c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
> >
> > That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)
> >
> > Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
> > is even worse.
>
> If you were honest

Which I am

> you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made
> an error in working it out.

Your equation was incorrect and you calculated an incorrect result.

> You would have said I was honest and made an error.

But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions
about reality and you're not willing to accept experimental results.

> Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does
> not represent the physics.

Ah, but it DOES agree with reality. That's why it is used.

> The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not affect the
> relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,

Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector, so your
assertion is wrong.

> as in the example of the MMX given above.

The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a presumed ether,
which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).

On Tuesday, 19 September 2023 at 15:40:19 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions
> about reality

We know your "rea;ity", you have honestly deleted GPS
clocks from it, as they didn't fit your moronic mumble.

On 9/16/2023 5:02 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>> SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/

The mere name of that site just screams "kꙩꙩksite".

> Just as sound shares the velocity of the medium, by the same token, light should as well making it C + V relative to the Sun.

Since light has no medium, how can light have a velocity relative to its
medium?

And what the heck, are you claiming the sun is the medium for light?

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> It denies relative motion for light.
>

How can you tell the difference?
Light has its own motion but so does the atom.
The atom can compete with light.
At a motion BH the atom moves ahead of light
near light speed leaving light behind.

Mitchell Raemsch

Am 16.09.2023 um 21:03 schrieb Paul Alsing:
....
>> ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!
>>
>> SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/
>
>
> Sciencevstruth.org is a flat-out crank site. From the owner of that site...
>
> "I am a general surgeon turned truth seeker and philosopher"

It is generally irrelvant, what the profession of a person is, who made
a certain statement.

If you want to reject a statement, than you need to reject the statement
itself, not its proponent.

It is in all cases illegal to adress the proponent himself on the basis
of his/her profession, religion, political opinions, belonging to
certain ethnic groups or similar.

Just stick to the topic and disprove the statement itself!

TH

>
> Do you think that this fellow is the correct way to learn relativity? I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I am interested in selling cheap... are you interested?
>

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> It denies relative motion for light.
>
> A cruise liner has a tennis court beneath the deck.
> A tennis ball shooter shoots balls at 20 mph in the direction the ship is sailing.
> The ship is sailing at 100 mph.
> The ball is moving relative to the water at 120 mph.

In relativity you need to describe this more precisely.

> Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
> The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
> Relativity denies this.

Again, you are omitting the basic assumptions of the theory.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

> If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium.
> Air in the MMX is moving with Earth at 30 km/sec.
> Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V relative to the Sun.

And now you've changedc the context.

> THEN RELATIVITY WILL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
> NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
> u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)
>
> Example:
> train= 100 mph= v
> passenger= 5mph= u'
> relative velocity= u
>
> 5 +100= 105
> 5x100= 500
> 100^2= 10,000
> SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
> 105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
>
> ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!
>
> SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth..org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/

You don't understand the theory.

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:

> On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark
>> Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
>> The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
>> Relativity denies this.
>
> Again, you are omitting the basic assumptions of the theory.
> "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

absolutely. Listen to this, it makes things clearer in Physics for us. You
fucking idiot. They are ready to kill again your people, with the weapons
you generously donated to them.

𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗦𝗲𝗲_𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝗛𝘆𝗽𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘆_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮_𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗳_𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗻_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻
https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/yyuFRn4ZLxbe

On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 2:31:03 PM UTC-7, Myron Bestuzhev-Lada wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark
> >> Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
> >> The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
> >> Relativity denies this.
> >
> > Again, you are omitting the basic assumptions of the theory.
> > "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
> absolutely. Listen to this, it makes things clearer in Physics for us. You
> fucking idiot. They are ready to kill again your people, with the weapons
> you generously donated to them.
>
> 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗦𝗲𝗲_𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝗛𝘆𝗽𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘆_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮_𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗳_𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗻_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻
> https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/yyuFRn4ZLxbe

Putin didn't invade Ukraine because of any NATO expansion. Of course he
uses it as a propaganda tool. But his real motivation is the restoration of
the Russian empire. Without NATO expansion he would have invaded Ukraine
exactly the same and at the same time(*), he'd only have used a different
excuse (typically they use "the oppression of the ethnic Russians" card").

(*) The timing had everything to do with Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan, or
rather the *manner* of this withdrawal (incompetent, indicating weak
leadership) and with West's tepid response to Chechnya and to the
Crimean Anschluss. (History does rhyme.)

--
Jan

On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:38:38 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 2:31:03 PM UTC-7, Myron Bestuzhev-Lada wrote:
> > JanPB wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:37:10 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark
> > >> Two flashlights placed end to end away from each other shine.
> > >> The light beams are moving 2c relative to each other.
> > >> Relativity denies this.
> > >
> > > Again, you are omitting the basic assumptions of the theory.
> > > "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
> > absolutely. Listen to this, it makes things clearer in Physics for us. You
> > fucking idiot. They are ready to kill again your people, with the weapons
> > you generously donated to them.
> >
> > 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗦𝗲𝗲_𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝗛𝘆𝗽𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘆_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮_𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗳_𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗻_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻
> > https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/yyuFRn4ZLxbe
> Putin didn't invade Ukraine because of any NATO expansion. Of course he
> uses it as a propaganda tool. But his real motivation is the restoration of
> the Russian empire. Without NATO expansion he would have invaded Ukraine
> exactly the same and at the same time(*), he'd only have used a different
> excuse (typically they use "the oppression of the ethnic Russians" card")..
>
> (*) The timing had everything to do with Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan, or
> rather the *manner* of this withdrawal (incompetent, indicating weak
> leadership) and with West's tepid response to Chechnya and to the
> Crimean Anschluss. (History does rhyme.)
>
> --
> Jan

Putin didn't dare to do the invasion while Trump was potus, he waited until we got the Bidum weakling.

JanPB wrote:

>> absolutely. Listen to this, it makes things clearer in Physics for us.
>> You fucking idiot. They are ready to kill again your people, with the
>> weapons you generously donated to them.
>>
>>𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗦𝗲𝗲_𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝗛𝘆𝗽𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘆_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮_𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗳_𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗻_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻
>> https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/yyuFRn4ZLxbe
>
> Putin didn't invade Ukraine because of any NATO expansion. Of course he

read the fucking paper, before making a fool of yourself. See what they
did 𝗶𝗻_𝗰𝗮𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗮, the khazar goys of ukraine are 𝗶𝗻𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱_𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶𝘀, historically,
stealing a country of about 86% Christians. They already killed two
polakers, in polakia, without blinking an eye. Amazing the stupid you are.

On Wednesday, 4 October 2023 at 11:49:58 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:52:15 AM UTC-7, George Dani Markushevich wrote:
> > JanPB wrote:
> >
> > >> absolutely. Listen to this, it makes things clearer in Physics for us.
> > >> You fucking idiot. They are ready to kill again your people, with the
> > >> weapons you generously donated to them.
> > >>
> > >>𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗦𝗲𝗲_𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻_𝗛𝘆𝗽𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘆_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮_𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗳_𝗗𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗼𝗻_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻
> > >> https://bi%74%63hute.com/video/yyuFRn4ZLxbe
> > >
> > > Putin didn't invade Ukraine because of any NATO expansion. Of course he
> > read the fucking paper, before making a fool of yourself. See what they
> > did 𝗶𝗻_𝗰𝗮𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗮, the khazar goys of ukraine are 𝗶𝗻𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱_𝗻𝗮𝘇𝗶𝘀, historically,
> > stealing a country of about 86% Christians. They already killed two
> > polakers, in polakia, without blinking an eye. Amazing the stupid you are.
> Putin's problem is that now he knows he walked into the same trap Brezhnev did
> in 1980. Now he would really like to leave Ukraine but he knows he cannot do it
> without a face-saving solution (he'd be killed if he just left without preconditions).
> So the war today continues only because Washington wants it to continue. The next
> US president can stop it in 48 hours if that's what he wants. The current administration
> OTOH is completely wedded to the naive idea that this Afghanistan 2.0 can work the
> same way Afghanistan 1.0 did with Brezhnev.
There is no doubt you're a true idiot. But, well, it
was well known before.

On Tuesday, 19 September 2023 at 14:40:19 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 9:22:07 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
> > > > here is the details of an example with light:
> > > > What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
> > > > v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
> > > > u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
> > > > u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
> > > > u= Relativity= c
> > > > REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
> > > > c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
> > >
> > > That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)
> > >
> > > Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
> > > is even worse.
> >
> > If you were honest
> Which I am

No you aren’t. And you even admit it below. You admit Laurence made a mistake.
But as usual for a dishonest relativist you came with your pre conceived BS notions
and then dishonestly called a mistake...a lie.

> > you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made
> > an error in working it out.
> Your equation was incorrect and you calculated an incorrect result.
> > You would have said I was honest and made an error.
> But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions
> about reality and you're not willing to accept experimental results.

You just looked in the mirror Gary. And saw the sick beast and did not like it.

> > Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does
> > not represent the physics.
> Ah, but it DOES agree with reality. That's why it is used.

But the galilean u= v+u’ also agrees with reality. That’s why it’s used.

> > The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not affect the
> > relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
> Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector, so your
> assertion is wrong.
> > as in the example of the MMX given above.
> The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
> velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a presumed ether,
> which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
> by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).

Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be c+v for
any observer.

On 10/4/2023 3:52 AM, George Dani Markushevich wrote:
> the khazar goys of ukraine

Hanson I thought you were trying to hide your previous nickname. Don't
use phrases that only Hanson used so often :)

Is Vulva your vulva? You must be feminist too then.

On 2023-10-04 09:49:56 +0000, JanPB said:

>
> [ … ]

> Putin's problem is that now he knows he walked into the same trap Brezhnev did
>
> in 1980. Now he would really like to leave Ukraine but he knows he cannot do it
>
> without a face-saving solution (he'd be killed if he just left without
> preconditions).
>
> So the war today continues only because Washington wants it to
> continue. The next
>
> US president can stop it in 48 hours if that's what he wants.

You must be American to believe anything so simple-minded (a belief you
share with ex-President Trump). The President of the USA just needs to
wave his magic wand and any problem will disappear.

> The current administration
>
> OTOH is completely wedded to the naive idea that this Afghanistan 2.0
> can work the
>
> same way Afghanistan 1.0 did with Brezhnev.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jan

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 09:41:15 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-10-04 09:49:56 +0000, JanPB said:
>
> >
> > [ … ]
> > Putin's problem is that now he knows he walked into the same trap Brezhnev did
> >
> > in 1980. Now he would really like to leave Ukraine but he knows he cannot do it
> >
> > without a face-saving solution (he'd be killed if he just left without
> > preconditions).
> >
> > So the war today continues only because Washington wants it to
> > continue. The next
> >
> > US president can stop it in 48 hours if that's what he wants.
> You must be American to

A mistake, as usual. And, well, it's actually a part of Russian
rhetorics: their wild aggression is really a struggle against
evil west trying hardly to destabilize poor Russia. And: Ukraine
is just a puppet of America, having really nothing to say about
the future peace treaty.

Anyway, all the Shit's believers are idiots, this or that way.

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 19 September 2023 at 14:40:19 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 9:22:07 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
> > > > > here is the details of an example with light:
> > > > > What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
> > > > > v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
> > > > > u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
> > > > > u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
> > > > > u= Relativity= c
> > > > > REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
> > > > > c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
> > > >
> > > > That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)
> > > >
> > > > Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
> > > > is even worse.
> > >
> > > If you were honest
> >
> > Which I am
>
> No you aren’t.

Says the congenital liar :-))

> And you even admit it below. You admit Laurence made a mistake.

Apparently, you can't parse sentences correctly, either.
> But as usual for a dishonest relativist you came with your pre conceived
> BS notions and then dishonestly called a mistake...a lie.

Doing it once is forgivable: it MAY be a mistake. Doing it over and over
again is not a mistake. You and Larry are really strung out. Relax.

> > > you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made
> > > an error in working it out.
> >
> > Your equation was incorrect and you calculated an incorrect result.
> >
> > > You would have said I was honest and made an error.
> >
> > But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions
> > about reality and you're not willing to accept experimental results.
>
> You just looked in the mirror Gary. And saw the sick beast and did not like it.

Says the guy who hides his head in the sand whenever confronted with
experimental results :-))

> > > Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does
> > > not represent the physics.
> >
> > Ah, but it DOES agree with reality. That's why it is used.
>
> But the galilean u= v+u’ also agrees with reality. That’s why it’s used.

So you prove your own dishonesty by spouting a partial truth. The GT
is used when relativistic effects are smaller than the tolerance for errors
in the application. You're as bad as Wozzie-boy.

> > > The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not
> > > affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
> >
> > Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector,
> > so your assertion is wrong.
> >
> > > as in the example of the MMX given above.
> >
> > The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
> > velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a presumed ether,
> > which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
> > by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).
>
> Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be c+v for
> any observer.

The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest wrt each
other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant. You've stuck your
head in the sand again. Emission theory is refuted.

On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 13:35:53 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, 19 September 2023 at 14:40:19 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 9:22:07 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:53:09 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
> > > > > > here is the details of an example with light:
> > > > > > What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
> > > > > > v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
> > > > > > u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
> > > > > > u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
> > > > > > u= Relativity= c
> > > > > > REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
> > > > > > c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not the correct equation, it's u' = (c + 0.5c)/(1 + 0.5c^2/c^2)
> > > > >
> > > > > Lying is a poor form of argument. Lying by incorrect mathematics
> > > > > is even worse.
> > > >
> > > > If you were honest
> > >
> > > Which I am
> >
> > No you aren’t.
> Says the congenital liar :-))

I cited your quotes as evidence to prove you were lying...
So far you haven’t supplied any of my quotes as evidence to prove that I lied.
Typical dishonest low IQ fact free relativist,

> > And you even admit it below. You admit Laurence made a mistake.
> Apparently, you can't parse sentences correctly, either.

Yes I understand your problem Gary. Seeing as you inadvertantly
admitted Laurence didnt lie when you falsely claimed he did...
Your only option is....is to change the subject.

> > But as usual for a dishonest relativist you came with your pre conceived
> > BS notions and then dishonestly called a mistake...a lie.
> Doing it once is forgivable: it MAY be a mistake. Doing it over and over
> again is not a mistake. You and Larry are really strung out. Relax.

In that case...why do you continually insist on telling lies?
Oh I know...you are VERY strung out having been caught telling
porkies about Laurence.

> > > > you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made
> > > > an error in working it out.
> > >
> > > Your equation was incorrect and you calculated an incorrect result.
> > >
> > > > You would have said I was honest and made an error.
> > >
> > > But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions
> > > about reality and you're not willing to accept experimental results.
> >
> > You just looked in the mirror Gary. And saw the sick beast and did not like it.
> Says the guy who hides his head in the sand whenever confronted with
> experimental results :-))

Ahh! So you do admit that empirical data from MMX shows that light does travel
at constant speeds isotropically ?
I thought you and your dishonest low IQ relativist friends had decided the earth
doesn’t rotate on its axis?

> > > > Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does
> > > > not represent the physics.
> > >
> > > Ah, but it DOES agree with reality. That's why it is used.
> >
> > But the galilean u= v+u’ also agrees with reality. That’s why it’s used.
> So you prove your own dishonesty by spouting a partial truth. The GT
> is used when relativistic effects are smaller than the tolerance for errors
> in the application. You're as bad as Wozzie-boy.

In other words you can’t deny u=v+u’ agrees with what you called “ reality”
😂 Good one. Oh well. You can always go back to reciting passages from
your hero Adolf Einsteins “Special Maybe it can maybe it
can’t Theory of relativity” for spiritual guidance.

> > > > The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not
> > > > affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
> > >
> > > Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector,
> > > so your assertion is wrong.
> > >
> > > > as in the example of the MMX given above.
> > >
> > > The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
> > > velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a presumed ether,
> > > which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
> > > by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).
> >
> > Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be c+v for
> > any observer.
> The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest wrt each
> other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant. You've stuck your
> head in the sand again. Emission theory is refuted.

I’m glad to see you admit that both source , detector and mirrors are in the same
non inertial frame. It’s about time you admitted you have zero evidence from
MMX that can prove that light doesn’t travel at constant speeds isotropically
in non inertial frames.
Oh! But you pretended that there are other experiments that prove c is invariant.
Id like to hear what sort of BS you can pull out of your backside to prove this
false claim. Although I do understand that faced with having to admit MMX
does confirm light travels at constant speeds in non inertial frames..
its a good tactic for you to change the subject to another experiment.
(Even though it’s inevitable that this new experiment will also confirm
emission theory. Like IvesStillwell or Sagnac for instance. But it will buy
you a bit more time to figure out what the next change of subject for you
could be)

On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 14:35:53 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> So you prove your own dishonesty by spouting a partial truth. The GT
> is used when relativistic effects are smaller than the tolerance for errors
> in the application.

No, anyone can check GPS - it's oppositely, you may
only pretend your idiocies are true where the
difference between them and GT has no significance.

> The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest wrt each
> other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant.

No, they haven't, and even your idiot guru was
forced to withdraw from this absurd in his
GR shit,

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:24:41 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 13:35:53 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > No you aren’t.
> >
> > Says the congenital liar :-))
> I cited your quotes as evidence to prove you were lying...

It didn't look like that to me.

> So far you haven’t supplied any of my quotes as evidence
> to prove that I lied.

:-) Are you so demented that you can't remember them?

> > > And you even admit it below. You admit Laurence made a mistake.
> >
> > Apparently, you can't parse sentences correctly, either.
>
> Yes I understand your problem Gary. Seeing as you inadvertantly
> admitted Laurence didnt lie when you falsely claimed he did.

He's a liar, just like you are.
> Your only option is....is to change the subject.

You'd better change it quickly then.

> > > But as usual for a dishonest relativist you came with your
> > > pre conceived BS notions and then dishonestly called a mistake
> > > ...a lie.
> > Doing it once is forgivable: it MAY be a mistake. Doing it over and
> > over again is not a mistake. You and Larry are really strung out. Relax..
>
> In that case...why do you continually insist on telling lies?
> Oh I know...you are VERY strung out having been caught telling
> porkies about Laurence.

Look at you! Infantile "oh so are you nyah nyah" stuff. Grow up!

> > > > > you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made
> > > > > an error in working it out.
> > > >
> > > > Your equation was incorrect and you calculated an incorrect result.
> > > >
> > > > > You would have said I was honest and made an error.
> > > >
> > > > But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions
> > > > about reality and you're not willing to accept experimental results..
> > >
> > > You just looked in the mirror Gary. And saw the sick beast and did not like it.
> >
> > Says the guy who hides his head in the sand whenever confronted with
> > experimental results :-))
>
> Ahh! So you do admit that empirical data from MMX shows that light does travel
> at constant speeds isotropically ?

As I said and now you proved it: you can't parse a sentence correctly. Reread it
again. Are you stupid or are you a liar?

> I thought you and your dishonest low IQ relativist friends had decided the earth
> doesn’t rotate on its axis?

Apparently, you don't think at all. May we call you "Rock"?

> > > > > Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does
> > > > > not represent the physics.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, but it DOES agree with reality. That's why it is used.
> > >
> > > But the galilean u= v+u’ also agrees with reality. That’s why it’s used.
> >
> > So you prove your own dishonesty by spouting a partial truth. The GT
> > is used when relativistic effects are smaller than the tolerance for errors
> > in the application. You're as bad as Wozzie-boy.
>
> In other words you can’t deny u=v+u’ agrees with what you called “ reality”

Again you can't parse a sentence correctly, or you're dishonest, or both.

> 😂 Good one. Oh well. You can always go back to reciting passages from
> your hero Adolf Einsteins “Special Maybe it can maybe it
> can’t Theory of relativity” for spiritual guidance.

“Your mind is a garden,
Your thoughts are the seeds.
You can grow flowers
Or you can grow weeds.”
-- Anonymous

> > > > > The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not
> > > > > affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
> > > >
> > > > Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector,
> > > > so your assertion is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > > as in the example of the MMX given above.
> > > >
> > > > The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
> > > > velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a presumed ether,
> > > > which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
> > > > by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments)..
> > >
> > > Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be c+v for
> > > any observer.
> >
> > The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest wrt each
> > other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant. You've stuck your
> > head in the sand again. Emission theory is refuted.
>
> I’m glad to see you admit that both source , detector and mirrors are in the same
> non inertial frame. It’s about time you admitted you have zero evidence from
> MMX that can prove that light doesn’t travel at constant speeds isotropically
> in non inertial frames.

I never said it did. People incapable of parsing sentences correctly come up with
such stupid things. Or they're just stupid.

> Oh! But you pretended that there are other experiments that prove c is invariant.
> Id like to hear what sort of BS you can pull out of your backside to prove this
> false claim. Although I do understand that faced with having to admit MMX
> does confirm light travels at constant speeds in non inertial frames..
> its a good tactic for you to change the subject to another experiment.
> (Even though it’s inevitable that this new experiment will also confirm
> emission theory. Like IvesStillwell or Sagnac for instance. But it will buy
> you a bit more time to figure out what the next change of subject for you
> could be)

You must be French:

“The last time the French asked for ‘more proof’ it came marching
Into Paris under a German flag.” – David Letterman

On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 16:26:55 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:24:41 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 13:35:53 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No you aren’t.
> > >
> > > Says the congenital liar :-))
> > I cited your quotes as evidence to prove you were lying...
> It didn't look like that to me.
> > So far you haven’t supplied any of my quotes as evidence
> > to prove that I lied.
> :-) Are you so demented that you can't remember them?
> > > > And you even admit it below. You admit Laurence made a mistake.
> > >
> > > Apparently, you can't parse sentences correctly, either.
> >
> > Yes I understand your problem Gary. Seeing as you inadvertantly
> > admitted Laurence didnt lie when you falsely claimed he did.
> He's a liar, just like you are.
> > Your only option is....is to change the subject.
> You'd better change it quickly then.
> > > > But as usual for a dishonest relativist you came with your
> > > > pre conceived BS notions and then dishonestly called a mistake
> > > > ...a lie.
> > > Doing it once is forgivable: it MAY be a mistake. Doing it over and
> > > over again is not a mistake. You and Larry are really strung out. Relax.
> >
> > In that case...why do you continually insist on telling lies?
> > Oh I know...you are VERY strung out having been caught telling
> > porkies about Laurence.
> Look at you! Infantile "oh so are you nyah nyah" stuff. Grow up!
> > > > > > you would have said I was correct about what the formula does yet made
> > > > > > an error in working it out.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your equation was incorrect and you calculated an incorrect result.
> > > > >
> > > > > > You would have said I was honest and made an error.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I don't think you are honest. You come with preconceived notions
> > > > > about reality and you're not willing to accept experimental results.
> > > >
> > > > You just looked in the mirror Gary. And saw the sick beast and did not like it.
> > >
> > > Says the guy who hides his head in the sand whenever confronted with
> > > experimental results :-))
> >
> > Ahh! So you do admit that empirical data from MMX shows that light does travel
> > at constant speeds isotropically ?
> As I said and now you proved it: you can't parse a sentence correctly. Reread it
> again. Are you stupid or are you a liar?

Zero evidence. Just evasive subject changing. Not that I expected anything else.

> > I thought you and your dishonest low IQ relativist friends had decided the earth
> > doesn’t rotate on its axis?
> Apparently, you don't think at all. May we call you "Rock"?
> > > > > > Using a formula to negate relative velocity is what is dishonest because it does
> > > > > > not represent the physics.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, but it DOES agree with reality. That's why it is used.
> > > >
> > > > But the galilean u= v+u’ also agrees with reality. That’s why it’s used.
> > >
> > > So you prove your own dishonesty by spouting a partial truth. The GT
> > > is used when relativistic effects are smaller than the tolerance for errors
> > > in the application. You're as bad as Wozzie-boy.
> >
> > In other words you can’t deny u=v+u’ agrees with what you called “ reality”
> Again you can't parse a sentence correctly, or you're dishonest, or both.
> > 😂 Good one. Oh well. You can always go back to reciting passages from
> > your hero Adolf Einsteins “Special Maybe it can maybe it
> > can’t Theory of relativity” for spiritual guidance.
> “Your mind is a garden,
> Your thoughts are the seeds.
> You can grow flowers
> Or you can grow weeds.”
> -- Anonymous

If I wrote that nonsense, I would remain anonymous too,
It’s you chemically obsessed bio fascists who think that native
flora are just weeds to stamp their Jack boots on.
No wonder we have global warming with you lot in charge.

> > > > > > The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not
> > > > > > affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
> > > > >
> > > > > Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the detector,
> > > > > so your assertion is wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > > as in the example of the MMX given above.
> > > > >
> > > > > The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no relative
> > > > > velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a presumed ether,
> > > > > which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is entrained
> > > > > by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).
> > > >
> > > > Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be c+v for
> > > > any observer.
> > >
> > > The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest wrt each
> > > other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant. You've stuck your
> > > head in the sand again. Emission theory is refuted.
> >
> > I’m glad to see you admit that both source , detector and mirrors are in the same
> > non inertial frame. It’s about time you admitted you have zero evidence from
> > MMX that can prove that light doesn’t travel at constant speeds isotropically
> > in non inertial frames.
> I never said it did. People incapable of parsing sentences correctly come up with
> such stupid things. Or they're just stupid.

You never said it did! Finally. A relativist admits they haven’t any evidence to
prove that the null result isn’t consistent with light travelling at constant
speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.
All you need to do now is admit that the sun doesnt rotate around the earth
and we can cure you of your delusion that the lab, and the MMX experiment
are not rotating around the earth in their imaginary inertial frame.

> > Oh! But you pretended that there are other experiments that prove c is invariant.
> > Id like to hear what sort of BS you can pull out of your backside to prove this
> > false claim. Although I do understand that faced with having to admit MMX
> > does confirm light travels at constant speeds in non inertial frames..
> > its a good tactic for you to change the subject to another experiment.
> > (Even though it’s inevitable that this new experiment will also confirm
> > emission theory. Like IvesStillwell or Sagnac for instance. But it will buy
> > you a bit more time to figure out what the next change of subject for you
> > could be)
> You must be French:
>
Not only do you suffer from a divine belief that you and
your relativist friends are members of a master race, you have
just shown us that you are definitely a bigot.

> “The last time the French asked for ‘more proof’ it came marching
> Into Paris under a German flag.” – David Letterman

The last time a scientist asked a relativist for ‘any proof’, it never
ever arrived at all. And by the looks of it from your replies the only
thing we can expect in Paris, or anywhere, from a relativist will be a
dense fog of spiritualist miasma.

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:32:57 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 5 October 2023 at 16:26:55 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:24:41 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > I cited your quotes as evidence to prove you were lying...
> >
> > It didn't look like that to me.

No comment. I win this round.

> > > So far you haven’t supplied any of my quotes as evidence
> > > to prove that I lied.
> >
> > :-) Are you so demented that you can't remember them?

Apparently so.

> > > Yes I understand your problem Gary. Seeing as you inadvertantly
> > > admitted Laurence didnt lie when you falsely claimed he did.
> >
> > He's a liar, just like you are.

Silence implies consent. I win this round, too.

> > > In that case...why do you continually insist on telling lies?
> > > Oh I know...you are VERY strung out having been caught telling
> > > porkies about Laurence.
> >
> > Look at you! Infantile "oh so are you nyah nyah" stuff. Grow up!

Childish nonsense from Lou.

> > > Ahh! So you do admit that empirical data from MMX shows that light does travel
> > > at constant speeds isotropically ?
> >
> > As I said and now you proved it: you can't parse a sentence correctly. Reread it
> > again. Are you stupid or are you a liar?
>
> Zero evidence. Just evasive subject changing. Not that I expected anything else.

Your past behavior colors your present behavior. You've been shown the evidence
time after time, but you prefer to believe fables. You, sir, are nothing but a troll.

> > > I thought you and your dishonest low IQ relativist friends had decided the earth
> > > doesn’t rotate on its axis?
> >
> > Apparently, you don't think at all. May we call you "Rock"?

Silence implies consent. Okay, Rock.

> > > In other words you can’t deny u=v+u’ agrees with what you called “ reality”
> >
> > Again you can't parse a sentence correctly, or you're dishonest, or both.

Silence implies consent. Right dishonest rock?

> > > 😂 Good one. Oh well. You can always go back to reciting passages from
> > > your hero Adolf Einsteins “Special Maybe it can maybe it
> > > can’t Theory of relativity” for spiritual guidance.
> >
> > “Your mind is a garden,
> > Your thoughts are the seeds.
> > You can grow flowers
> > Or you can grow weeds.”
> > -- Anonymous
>
> If I wrote that nonsense, I would remain anonymous too,
> It’s you chemically obsessed bio fascists who think that native
> flora are just weeds to stamp their Jack boots on.

Wow! Where did THAT bool poop come from?
Ah, right. A troll under a rock.

> No wonder we have global warming with you lot in charge.

Only an idiot would think physicists were in charge.

> > > I’m glad to see you admit that both source , detector and mirrors are in the same
> > > non inertial frame. It’s about time you admitted you have zero evidence from
> > > MMX that can prove that light doesn’t travel at constant speeds isotropically
> > > in non inertial frames.
> >
> > I never said it did. People incapable of parsing sentences correctly come up with
> > such stupid things. Or they're just stupid.
>
> You never said it did! Finally. A relativist admits they haven’t any evidence to
> prove that the null result isn’t consistent with light travelling at constant
> speeds isotropically in non inertial frames.

Troll-Under-the-Rock still can't parse sentences correctly.

> All you need to do now is admit that the sun doesnt rotate around the earth
> and we can cure you of your delusion that the lab, and the MMX experiment
> are not rotating around the earth in their imaginary inertial frame.

Non compos mentos nonsense.

> > > Oh! But you pretended that there are other experiments that prove c is invariant.
> > > Id like to hear what sort of BS you can pull out of your backside to prove this
> > > false claim. Although I do understand that faced with having to admit MMX
> > > does confirm light travels at constant speeds in non inertial frames...
> > > its a good tactic for you to change the subject to another experiment..
> > > (Even though it’s inevitable that this new experiment will also confirm
> > > emission theory. Like IvesStillwell or Sagnac for instance. But it will buy
> > > you a bit more time to figure out what the next change of subject for you
> > > could be)
> >
> > You must be French:
> >
> Not only do you suffer from a divine belief that you and
> your relativist friends are members of a master race, you have
> just shown us that you are definitely a bigot.
>
> > “The last time the French asked for ‘more proof’ it came marching
> > Into Paris under a German flag.” – David Letterman
>
> The last time a scientist asked a relativist for ‘any proof’, it never
> ever arrived at all.

You've seen more proof than even the French saw when the Nazi thugs
were flexing their muscle.

> And by the looks of it from your replies the only
> thing we can expect in Paris, or anywhere, from a relativist will be a
> dense fog of spiritualist miasma.

The Troll-Under-the-Rock says, "Arf, arf" ... "Oink, oink"

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before
swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you..
Matthew 7:6

"Gary Harnagel" wrote in message
news:b0075633-162c-4734-bf22-04440b57e1efn@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:

> > > The physics is not true because, even if the source velocity does not
> > > affect the relative velocity, the sink (observer) velocity does,
> >
> > Velocity is relative and can be applied to either the source or the
> > detector,
> > so your assertion is wrong.
> >
> > > as in the example of the MMX given above.
> >
> > The MMX has source and detector at rest wrt each other, so there is no
> > relative
> > velocity. The MMX is meant to measure the relative velocity of a
> > presumed ether,
> > which was not detected. Conclusion: either there is no ether or ether is
> > entrained
> > by the earth (which is refuted by starlight aberration experiments).
>
> Notice if there is no ether...it does not follow that lightspeed cannot be
> c+v for
> any observer.

>The MMX cannot determine that because the source and detector are at rest
>wrt each
>other - DUH! Other experiments have determined that c is invariant.

Well..its not quite so simple.

Measuring the SOL in different inertial frames requires moving clocks.
Clocks are calibrated by the SOL. Its circular because clocks are assumed to
tick invariantly by the POR.

Its an:

A1) All that is red is a plant
A2) Grass is red
C0) Thus grass is a plant

effect. False axioms can result in a true conclusion.

Its clear that Lorentz Invariance is an accurate description of
observations. However, the correctness of the LT doesn't depend on the
axioms of SR.

Because the two axioms of SR cannot be verified independently, due to their
circular nature, there are other axioms that can also result in the LT.

Indeed, one consistent alternative is the Lorenzt Ether Theory. However, it
is strongly noted that an ether of Lorenz's understanding isn't a
requirement or claimed, any Lorentz Invariant background field will do.
Lorentz clearly wasn't aware of modern massless quantum fields.

So, The POR states that the rate of clock ticks must be independent of
inertial frame. However, directly, measuring clocks ticks of inertial
frames shows they, apparently do change.

SR resolves this apparent conflict by claiming that this is an illusion,
such that clocks are actually experiencing more time (different path in
"space-time"). That is, time is covereved at a different rate, say 100s/s.

The alternative is simply that clocks do indeed tick slow when moving
through a background field, such that the same Lorentz invariance of a
velocity unobservable, but actually existing background field.

Why does this matter?

Well... it eliminates the nonsensical block universe consequence of SR

Lee Smolin:

"...And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously
for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of
special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made
time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there
waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a
logical and metaphysical dead end…”

That is, SR states that the future is deterministic, Quantum Mechanics says
it isn't.

It also eliminates magic. The SR worldview states that a true empty universe
has physical characteristics. This is also nonsensical. X, T and c are
clearly meaningless in such a universe. There are no clocks and rulers in
such a universe to verify such a metaphysical claim.

Its clear that this universe is no where empty, thus attributing an
invariant SOL to an emergent property of Quantum Fields eliminates this
magic.

...and where it is also noted from...

Professor (UK head of department) of Physics at Cambridge, David Tong (Adams
prize winner) has a YouTube general audience lecture on QFT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg

0:31 - "...What are we made of...what are the fundamental building
blocks of nature...?"

19:30 - "... so there is spread something throughout this room, something
we call the electron field..its like a fluid that fills ..the entire
universe..and the ripples of this electron fluid..the waves of this fluid
get tied into little bundles of energy, by the rules of quantum
mechanics..and these bundles of energy are what we call the particle the
electron....and the same is true for every kind of particle in the
universe..."

Pretty much an ether in denial.... we are made of the stuff...it always
moves with us :-)

-- https://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html - General Relativity
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/ SuperSpice Simulation
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html - Electronics