beda pietanza wrote:
> having two rulers A and B moving at different speed  in the ether
> along the same line they would measure each other as :
>
> Ruler(t)= (ruler A * ruler B) / (1+ (Va*Vb))
>
> sqr(1-Vt^2) = (sqr(1-Va^2)*sqr(1-Vb^2)) / (1+(Va*Vb))
>
> For Vt = (Va+Vb) / (1+(Va*Vb))
>
> Vt = the relative speed between A and B
>
xxein:  Stop this crap.  In physics there are logical descriptors that
must be compatible (to observation).  In math there are logical
operators that must be compatible (to counting).  Any unification
between the two is a hybrid formulization and is not to be considered
as anything more than a dream until it is recognized for the
sub-relation that it is.  One apple and one orange make two objects
(math), but they are no more compatible in physics than a planet to an
atom.

"For Vt = (Va+Vb) / (1+(Va*Vb))", it is nothing but a "semi-special"
case.  The caveat is the explanation of the terms.  Since this is just
a parallel velocity measurement (obviously), it derives from the
"addition of parallel velocities".  And while that can be considered
ether compatible, it is not a proof of ether.  Nor a disproof.

In common parlance (using different symbols), your vt, va and vb
describes what t would observe as a speed between a and b if t were
going a 'certain' speed in a "flat ether".  But you already assumed
that a and b had a certain speed wrt the ether so vt is just a result
that satisfies a math under the "assumed" conditions.

Let's go back to Einstein's formulation, which you may misintpret.

vc = va + vb / 1 + (va * vb).

What this says is that c will measure  b's speed =  to what c measures
a's speed + what a measures c's speed over 1 + (c measuring a * a
measuring b).

In contrast, your formula correctly implies to a different reading.  It
states that if absolute speeds were known, it would be correct that vt
was an absolute speed that would be required for  c to observe the
absolute speed difference between a and b

That is why it is semi-special case.  It proves nothing but an 'if' for
an observation.  II there were only relativity, if there we only an
absolute.  Observation is relative and it is also conditional.  If you
'move' (inertially), you cannot observe the same as before, even if
everything else remains the same.

And then there ie is gravity.  If you only knew what it was.

But you have identified the mechaism of observation, even if you don't
know what it means aside from the mathematical.

Physics is different stuff!!   Don't post with your feet in mud.