I see no reason to reject the ether as moot.
Then you have missed the point of the half a century that led to modern physics. If there is no "ether wind" then what use was their unfounded belief in it in the first place?
The laws of electrodynamics have been discovered by an ether theoretician,
No, the people who discovered relativity of this kind were empiricists. The main theoreticians were Maxwell, Poincare, Lorentz and Einstein. All of the findings of that era were consolidated into Einstein's 1905 paper. So now you have to decide what a theoretician is, when his or her work is entirely founded on empirical data.
But you seem to mean this as disparaging term, and as way to insinuate ether mythology into the thread. Please state where any of the folks I mentioned propounded either data or empirical explanations (theories) which hinged on the need for an aether wind. Then please explain what happened when the aether wind was disproved. Upon slogging through that, you will see what I meant by "moot".
and special relativity in itself gives nothing (EM theory was already Lorentz invariant).
Wrong. It was the conclusion of Fitzeau et al, which gave rise to more and better ways to study light speed. Not sure what your point is about electromagnetics. I am saying that the fact that the Lorentz factor explains the experimental results, given the findings that c is invariant, was Einstein's big contribution (just capping off what Poincare and Lorentz were on the verge of stating) but then giving us that great thought experiment, which no doubt had occupied his thoughts while a boy, learning about his father's work.
It is not part of academic curricula. People who are interested in such questions know it.
Anything not in the academic curricula is either fresh news or junk. Academia is interested in all aspects of this subject, so the second statement looks worse than grim.
I am aware of that article but I don't see any relevance to whatever you are propounding, which appears to be an attack on science and academia by trying to insinuate the ancient unfounded belief in aether into actual science, which showed that unfounded belief to be worse than unfounded. It was completely wrong.
If two clocks follow different paths, they show different times if they are compared later.
The subject here is special relativity. The clocks disagree because one left the reference frame, and rejoined it later. Your prior statement was not correct because there is not always any appreciable influence on an experiment due to gravity. It requires that the gradient be crossed, and it complicated the discussion quite a bit. I say put that aside and let's stick with the experiments that motivated Einstein (prior to 1905) none of which had anything to do with gravity wells. Then, when we get past all of your attacks on science, we can move on to these other more complicated cases.
But they were initially synchronized (at the same initial time $$t_0$$) and when they are compared at the end, this also happens at the same moment of time $$t_1$$. But they show different numbers, numbers which depend on their trajectory, and computed by the formula $$\tau = \int_{t_0}^{t_1} \sqrt{1-v(t)^2/c^2} dt$$.
You are entirely resting your complaints on the ways clocks work. Please identify one experiment prior to Einstein's 1905 paper which employed a clock. When you find none, please admit that Einstein's results in 1905 were just fine.
So clocks do not measure time, which would be $$t_1-t_0$$, but something different.
You brought up clocks, I said, let's defer that to a thread on instrumentation. Now let's talk about the actual instruments used in the late 19th c.
Something which is, for small velocities, quite close to $$t_1-t_0$$, so that clocks can be used in everyday applications as if they would measure time, but they do not measure time.
Again, scuttle that boat.
The math I do not subscribe is GR math.
Good. Put GR to bed for now, too. This thread is talking about the video.
The math which is required for topologically nontrivial solutions.
I am beginning to think you are sure what you just said. I am only partly sure, and that last bit sounds like a mistaken notion.
In my preferred GR interpretation, there exists a preferred system of coordinates - harmonic coordinates.
Let's get back to what the experimental data requires, not what anyone prefers.
The experiment shows in a quite obvious way that light rays are influenced by gravity. That they don't follow straight lines is a quite trivial consequence.
This grossly misstates relativity. Again, there are (at least) TWO frames. In one frame, light is observed to take a straight path. In another, it is curved. That's pretty much what we mean by "relativity". The observations do not match.
SR remains a nice no-gravity approximation.
Wrong, it is perfectly correct for applications which may sit in a gravity well, but never cross the gradient. That includes, for example, the interferometer sitting sit on a bench while someone is looking for your ether. And not finding it.
My point is not that the error is big or small, but that the error exists, is well-known and accepted by the mainstream, so that SR is false.
No, there is no error at all in the applications I cited above, and in most other cases they are smaller in magnitude than the instrumentation can measure. That says nothing about the truth of SR. It says the experimenter was not trying to measure anything crossing a gravitational gradient.
Many false theories work nicely as approximations in situations where the error is small enough to be irrelevant.
You have reached that conclusion by making assumptions that have nothing to do with actual science. Go take a basic class that does some lab measurements and you will be cured of your error as soon as you are on the chopping block (pass or fail) for reporting your measurements accurately.
I linked to arxiv.org, and on arxiv.org you can always download the full texts without any paywalls.
Post the cite and prove what you just said.
The download is free on arxiv.org, that's why I give links to arxiv.org.
Check that; prove me wrong.
The abstract is not absurd, the paper is published in a mainstream journal. The theory is, of course, not mainstream.
Yes the abstract says nothing useful or meaningful. No, the "journal" is not mainstream. I see no text so I have no idea what you are talking about. The journal in question may be OK but show us how often it has been cited. How many times has your paper been cited? And where is your paper? Looks like a scam to me.
As if I would care. You can download it for free, and you can ignore it.
Not unless you provide a link. As I said, you gave no link to the article itself, there is a link on the page you gave us, but it shows a $40 fee to get the paper. Follow your own links, bro, and check your work before posting. Or correct me if I goofed. But I wasted too much time already trying to prove that any such paper even exists.
Ah, your are some paddoboy2, also submissive to authority? Ok, good buy, have a nice day.
No, I like paddo, but he rises through the screed by actually learning this stuff as an amateur. I myself went through formal training and a career. So you can get off the gas; I see no paper and for some reason your seem determined not to provide it. The dumb little abstract is useless. We need a proposition with all the rationale fleshed out. We need cites (I think I saw 50 references, but no text to link them to).
Have it your way. But why appear here just to argue nonsense? The topic is a great one, and so far we haven't even touched on it.
Man, I'm really not sure how that works with crystal standards, though . . . seems like it should be OK, but I think more test data is needed here just to be sure . . .