> The aether theory... Good example. But physics has a way to bring back old theories under new names, thus “New ether theories”: http://vixra.org/pdf/1708.03

> The aether theory... Good example. But physics has a way to bring back old theories under new names, thus “New ether theories”: http://vixra.org/pdf/1708.0318v1.pdf http://vixra.org/pdf/1708.0318v1.pdf It can also be said that Einstein substituted “space-time” for “ether”. But you are right my blanket statement turns out to be too general. > Special Relativity is clearly right enough that particle accelerators work... Unfortunately, I don’t agree that SP is a useful theory. Physicists include branded labels in their equations to save their theories and then when it comes to do actual calculations they eliminate those labels and use numerical methods. And then they say their theories work. This is my own view and I concede that I no longer have the energy to talk about such contentious physics issues. I don't like to argue on "theories" level because in physics all theories including Special Relativity are merely names given to a huge collection of statements. This collection will include contradictory statements as well. So if you argue with a physicist about Special Relativity he will simply pick and choose suitable arguments from the available legal arguments and prove his points. Some other physicist may choose other legal arguments and prove just the opposite point. Both arguments would be legal in physics. So when you say "Special Relativity is clearly right enough that particle accelerators work and atom bombs explode..." for me this is problematic because no term called "special relativity" enters any calculations in particle physics. They may use philosophical concepts associated with the theory and then eliminate those philosophical terms. But if we try to enter into specifics here we'll be lost in detail. I wish Stephen Crothers good luck and I hope he will succeed. This will be good for physics. But as an outsider his chances to succeed is minimal. If he were a prominent physicists lots of people here would have read and discussed this paper. But now it is dismissed because he bolded some sentences.