Who's familiar with the conversion? - "In 15 years' ship-time they could reach Andromeda

LET and SR are equivalent theories because they always give the same answer under any conditions

That is why the scientific community accepts it as the correct theory

A theory is correct if and only if it can make predictions that are confirmed by experiment that no other theory can make

Even though this author later tries to surreptiously suggest that LET and LR are the same thing, his own words expose his fallacious tactic. LET is NOT LR

1. I posted his words in response to a SPECIFIC claim by Max, and I made that clear. Max claimed that "test theories" are designed for, and can be used for, ONLY one purpose, and that the "one" purpose could NOT call SR into question. He was quite wrong about that.

Still waiting for you to apologize for attacking my reading comprehension problem. It seems you want me to NOT comprehend when I read certain parts that you think are wrong. Pure ass-holery from you.

There is no mention of LR anywhere in what you posted.

you posted words in response to MY post

I would like to hear Layman's explanation of the results of the the atomic clock experiment (Hafele-Keating) based on his idea of whatever he means by LR.

Your post makes no sense...

No, not in the least. "Neo-lorentzian" relativity or, more generally, theories of relative motion which posit absolute simultaneity, don't require an ether of any kind. Nor do they depend on any "absolutely" motionless point--much less the detection of such a point.

What the **** is LR? There is no mention of LR anywhere in what you posted

What I will, for brevity, call LR (lorentzian relativity) is NOT a "special case" of SR

Do you think the Lorentzian Ether Theory includes an immobile ether? Yes or no?

Is new-lorentzian relativity the same thing as LET?

You posted a link that said LET was the Lorenzo Ether Theory. The link also included an explanation of how LET included an immobile ether

I quoted one or two sentences from that misleading, poorly-written article. I did not vouch for everything said in the link, nor would I EVER do that.

So your response to me was simply nonsense

What I did say (specifically to YOU a few posts back) was this:

"Neo-lorentzian" relativity or, more generally, theories of relative motion which posit absolute simultaneity, don't require an ether of any kind. Nor do they depend on any "absolutely" motionless point--much less the detection of such a point.

I was not talking about LET then, or at any other point in this thread, get it?

Suppose this dragster is participating in a 20 mile race down a straight track with a big crowd lining the whole route.

The dragster has a top end of 200 mph. As long as he has enough gas, he can maintain that speed, but he can't exceed it, get the idea? After he hits top end he just "cruises" along at 200 mph.

Would he now (while cruising) be correct, if he claims he's not moving wrt the crowd (the earth's surface)?

Is this the question you want me to answer?

The answer is 'No'. You are specifying a frame of reference and within that frame of reference the math is pretty simple. 0 is not equal to 200 mph. (Of course, in a different frame of reference the values would be different). And I could suggest a number of experiments that could be done and measurements that could be made to confirm this answer. An crowd member with a stop watch watching the car pass two marks on the road would be just one experiment.

So, are you saying, then, that if I'm the guy in the dragster (I'm in HIS "frame of reference"), and I say that "I'm not the one moving relative to the crowed, the crowd is moving relative to me, while I remain motionless," then I would be WRONG?