[Bored chemist]

unsurprising to see that the two fairy tales don't tally.

[mad aetherist]

@mad aetherist

If nothing can travel faster than light then doesnt that mean that nothing can travel at more than 2c?
Meaning that i can go at up to 1c throo the aether in one direction & u can go at up to 1c throo aether in the other direction then the relative speed tween us is up to 2c, so nothing can be seen to travel at 2c nor at more than 2c.
That link said it would explain gravity, but i didnt see one word. And nothing explaining mass. Nor inertia.

How pleasant to meet up with a fellow aetherist in what, as you can obviously see for yourself, is an extremely hostile Einsteinian  environment! OK! So coming to your post that speeds up to 2c are possible. I think you have overlooked the fact that this is an Aether theory. What does an Aether theory mean in this context? It means that the speed of a signal is governed by the properties of the medium and nothing else! Therefore it does not obey Galilean transforms and the two speeds 1c + 1 c would not add up to 2c. To illustrate. Imagine that we standing in a medium separated by 1c ( i.e., the distance that a signal travels in the given medium in one second). You send me a signal travelling at 1c and I reciprocate, with my signal also travelling at 1c.  Then the speed of 1c is governed by the properties of the medium and nothing else. This means that it is not possible to generate a signal that will travel at at 1.5c or 2c. So if your signal is travelling towards myself and my signal is travelling towards you, they would not add up to 2 c. Rather they would meet up after a distance of 0.5c and the total time taken to travel the distance would be 0.5c since both signals only travel half the distance. The point is there is no additive transform. Next coming to the many, many objections that have been raised. Look at the gamma factor in the Lorentz transform. It is not something that exists in nature, it is something that you make with a conscious decision that such changes must occur.
I send a signal such that x = t, you send a signal such that x’ = t’ . In order for x = t to be equivalent to x’ =t’ , there has to be a fudge factor with the result that maybe time dilates or length contracts, so that both readings are the same. That fudge factor is the gamma factor that has been consciously decided upon.  Now, if a medium existed through which the signal (or the object) were travelling, there would be no need for a fudge factor, because all speeds are fixed by the nature of the medium. Hence no time dilation and no length contraction. Of course one could wax philosophical about the malleable nature of matter but with a medium present it no longer makes sense!

Greetings fellow aetherist.  It reminds me that every aetherist's aether is peculiar.  I hope we dont come to blows re our aetheric differences. Like Christians. Or Einsteinologists.
And it reminds me of Einstein sending Igor & six henchmen into the fog to fight one aetherist.  There is the sound of fighting & then quiet & Igor crawls back & says that its a trap, there's two of them. At which Alby says "three of them" & hits Igor on the head. I made that up. 
I think that there are lots of aetherists loitering here, & some ovem posting.

I still reckon that if i am going one way at nearly 1c & u going at nearly 1c the other way then the relative speed is nearly 2c. Likewise for two photons.
I agree that 1c is a non-reachable max limit for an object's speed throo the aether. And 1c is the max speed for light.
If i send a photon towards u while u are going at nearly 1c towards me then u will find that the photon is in effect going at nearly 2c towards u, ie it has a relative speed of nearly 2c.

Length contraction & ticking dilation might be true or might not. I reckon that LC is true, & probly TD.  Both being based on the speed of the aetherwind blowing throo the object.
The Lorentz equation for gamma for LC is based on natural micro-atomic electrostatic & electrodynamic theories. The use of that same equation & gamma for ticking dilation is less natural, but apparently TD has been measured for altitude (the Hafele Keating X for TD related to velocity or speed is a fraud)(this is well known).

I think that some of your comments re the non-naturalness & fudge factor of LC & TD apply to the Einsteinian gamma, not to the Lorentz.  The two equations & gammas are different, Einstein's being based on relative speed (& a mathtrick), Lorentz's on absolute speed (the aetherwind).

[mad aetherist]

So what i said is that the maximum true relative speed (or the true maximum relative speed if u like) can be up to 2c (based on me going at nearly 1c in one direction & u going at nearly 1c in the other).
As far as i can see that statement is ok in my aether & in the OP's aether. Hencely his/her statement that the max is up to 1c is wrong.

Something can locally go close to 1c, but not all the way up to.  If something is not here, then it can increase its distance from me (measured by a tape measure) as high a rate as you like.  There is no speed limit under GR.  There is only under SR, but SR is not a model of the universe.  The 'S' stands for the special case that only is locally approximated.

So you and I can go past each other in opposite directions at (locally measured by a stationary observer) nearly 1c, but we're each moving at less than 1c, not at 2c like you claim.  This is true in SR, and hopefully you don't consider either to be moving at 2c in your view, or for that matter even near 1c since you've not taken gravitational dilation into account. Under SR and GR, you don't need to since the speed is a local measurement, but under an absolute theory with absolute space, you also need to adjust for absolute time.  The nearby planet slows both of us down, so we're not actually moving at close to 1c in any absolute sense.

I got bogged down writing re all aspects of your reply. But i will home in on the main one which relates to the nearness of mass. 

To account for the nearness of mass, i like the idea of replacing c in the V V/cc in gamma with V V/c'c' where c' is the reduced speed of light near mass, & where c' is itself calculated by applying gamma' to c, & in this case that gamma' is calculated by using VeVe/cc in the equation for gamma, where Ve is the escape velocity.

V in the above is the speed of the aetherwind blowing throo the thing concerned.  It is the real speed, or absolute speed (Va) as seen by an observer sitting in the absolute reference frame, ie where the wind is 00 kmps. Here that observer will need to be a long way away to be well away from the mass concerned. 
Being near mass causes two problems for an observer. Firstly the aether inflow accelerating into the mass where aether is annihilated will make it difficult for our observer, ie to be sitting in the absolute frame the frame would need to be in free-fall. Secondly the speed of light in vacuum is slowed near mass (due to photaeno drag), & the slower speed of light at that location (near mass) magnifies the LC & TD suffered by any & all things & observers etc, in accordance with the relationships that i detailed above.

I think that that will work.  I dont think that it will ever make u divide by zero.  My way of using the escape velocity Ve is of course a direct steal from Einstein. But he then used relative velocity Vr for the V in his gammas, whilst i of course use absolute velocity Va.

[Halc]

Under SR and GR, you don't need to [take gravitational dilation into account] since the speed is a local measurement, but under an absolute theory with absolute space, you also need to adjust for absolute time.  The nearby planet slows both of us down, so we're not actually moving at close to 1c in any absolute sense.

I got bogged down writing re all aspects of your reply. But i will home in on the main one which relates to the nearness of mass.

That's mostly what I was trying to point out.

To account for the nearness of mass, i like the idea of replacing c in the V V/cc in gamma with V V/c'c' where c' is the reduced speed of light near mass, & where c' is itself calculated by applying gamma' to c, & in this case that gamma' is calculated by using VeVe/cc in the equation for gamma, where Ve is the escape velocity.

Good enough for discussion.  Then the maximum difference in absolute velocity of two objects moving fast in opposite directions is a bit under 2c' instead of 2c.  Problem is that c' might be less than half of c, so that difference would still under c for things passing each other.

V in the above is the speed of the aetherwind blowing throo the thing concerned.

What if there is no aetherwind?  Take a location that has a star on either side of it.  Which way might the aetherwind be blowing at that midpoint?  There is no acceleration there (as there is no acceleration anywhere without aetherwind), and yet the clock there 'ticks' slower than a distant one due to the near presence of the two stars.  The distant clock in fact has some aetherwind blowing through it due to the two distant stars.  Why isn't that one ticking slower?

This part has always confused me, how ticking rate is supposedly a function of speed of aetherwind blowing through something despite this simple example that contradicts it.

[mad aetherist]

Under SR and GR, you don't need to [take gravitational dilation into account] since the speed is a local measurement, but under an absolute theory with absolute space, you also need to adjust for absolute time.  The nearby planet slows both of us down, so we're not actually moving at close to 1c in any absolute sense.

I got bogged down writing re all aspects of your reply. But i will home in on the main one which relates to the nearness of mass.

That's mostly what I was trying to point out.

To account for the nearness of mass, i like the idea of replacing c in the V V/cc in gamma with V V/c'c' where c' is the reduced speed of light near mass, & where c' is itself calculated by applying gamma' to c, & in this case that gamma' is calculated by using VeVe/cc in the equation for gamma, where Ve is the escape velocity.

Good enough for discussion.  Then the maximum difference in absolute velocity of two objects moving fast in opposite directions is a bit under 2c' instead of 2c.  Problem is that c' might be less than half of c, so that difference would still under c for things passing each other.

V in the above is the speed of the aetherwind blowing throo the thing concerned.

What if there is no aetherwind?  Take a location that has a star on either side of it.  Which way might the aetherwind be blowing at that midpoint?  There is no acceleration there (as there is no acceleration anywhere without aetherwind), and yet the clock there 'ticks' slower than a distant one due to the near presence of the two stars.  The distant clock in fact has some aetherwind blowing through it due to the two distant stars.  Why isn't that one ticking slower?

This part has always confused me, how ticking rate is supposedly a function of speed of aetherwind blowing through something despite this simple example that contradicts it.

Yes u have scored a bullseye. That is where i came to a grinding halt the last time u & me looked at this on another thread about 4 weeks ago.  I will have a think. Watch this space.

I like that spot tween two stars where there must be zero aetherwind by symmetry, hencely i/we can forget about the Va of any aetherwind. And at that spot u will have two doses of slowing due to the presence of two masses.
 I think that ticking at that spot will be simply dilated by gamma' where gamma' is obtained by inserting VeVe/cc into the standard equation, & here Ve is obtained by simply using a mass of 2m assuming each star has mass m.

The key here is how to treat the escape velocity Ve. 
Some might say that g halfway tween the stars is zero m/s/s & hencely Ve is 00 kmps.
Others might say that u can escape by heading off at rt angles along a plane splitting the stars, in which case the effective mass is less than 2m.
I say that one has to use the total mass & treat it as if escaping from that distance from one star with mass 2m.

It might be confusing for all u guys, but it is not confusing for me. Because u might remember that i have a mechanism for my slowing, it is due to photaeno drag.  Photaeno drag is a scalar, whereas escape velocity aint.
The photaeno drag near two stars is the additive combination of the photaeno drag due to each star.

U can look up threads where i explain photaeno drag.  Photaenos are em radiation, & em radiation is photaenos. Photaenos are a half of each photon, photaenos are say little  tornadoes that emanate from the central helical body of each free photon & from each confined photon (ie elementary particles)(eg electrons quarks etc). 
Space is full of photaenos going in all directions.  The aether making the photaenos cannot multitask with 100% efficiency & hencely the photaenos (which propagate at say 5c) are slowed by other photaenos, photaeno drag.

This slowing happens in the vacuum of space & especially of course in matter (air water glass) where the photaeno congestion is at a max.  This stuff explains (2) refraction & (3) the doubled bending of light near the Sun & (4) Shapiro Delay, & (1) slowing of light near mass, & helps with the explanation of (5) the Catt Question, & (6) cosmic redshift, & (7) Earthly redshift, & (8 ) Cherenkov radiation, & (9) almost everything else.

I should get a Nobel every year untill i die. Actually my forte' is economics, but there is no Nobel for economics.

One little problem. Gasser has shown that em radiation (charge actually) travels at 5c in air in the nearfield (1m).
Firstly this means that had he done his X in vacuum he would have gotten say 7c or 8c.
Secondly had he done it well away from Earth & other mass he might have gotten 9c.
Thirdly it means that i am in the poo. Because it means that the speed of em radiation aint constant. It slows as it crosses Gasser's lab.  Thats weird. Gasser was measuring em radiation, but he thort he was measuring photons. No, he was measuring the speed of photaenos, ie em radiation (charge radiation)(same speed i suppose).
This needs sorting out. I will have a think.