On May 13, 11:48 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 13, 2:04 am, Albertito wrote:

On May 13, 10:03 am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On May 13, 12:31 am, Albertito wrote:
[snip]

Simple question: What do you hope to accomplish by writing things that
are purposefully experimentally indistinguishable from SR when you
have no underlying theory to derive them from?

Is the second postulate of SR a first principle?

Yes...

Yes? Is it a first principle to claim the speed of
light does not depend on the speed of the source,

Yes...

but then we will have to deal with time dilations and
length contractions, in order to be able explain
phenomena?

No. These are /predictions/, not first principles. You might want to
actually study a little science first.

Well, if it is so that c' = c, is a first
principle from which SR can be derived, then
c' = c Exp(-v/c^2) is also a first principle from which
my model can be derived, and time dilations and
length contractions will not be required.

Except there is zero evidence for your model, and you haven't actually
derived anything meaningful yet. You write down equations you think
your model has, but you don't ever show where they come from. In fact,
the equations you write are always arbitrary and only picked because
they match some SR equation to a few orders in a power series
expansion.

Why should anyone care what you have to say at all when that is all
you ever do?

Sorry, I meant c'= c Exp(-v/c), hehe :-)
BTW, just one question: If I can derive the prediction for
the ratios of charged lepton masses (issue that noboby
still can resolve), will you become a renegade of SR,
and become a faithful supporter of my model?