Akinbo,
Nice binary system. But we must define 'absolute' as there are always Bayesian/ Godel (iPAD) distributions between 0 and 1! There's ignored 'wiggle room which I'll show, by my definitions, consistent with SR's postulates but not other assumptions.
Absolute Space; A cosmic medium with a single 'state of motion' for defining speed.
Absolute Time; All Identical clocks read alike to observers at rest in the clock frame.
Absolute speed c; Max local propagation speed with respect to all inertial systems, as SR's postulates.
Now ostensibly 0,1,1 (so no absolute space) may seem to accord with the common SR interpretation which leads to inconsistency with observations and paradoxes. I'll show how 0,1,1, with slightly different assumptions removes those inconsistencies.
0, No Absolute space, but local background inertial systems (media) which can move relatively with respect to each other, not 'thought of' as bounded but mutually exclusive (as Pauli's fermions). We then have a 'toy' model of discrete fields (thus DFM) bounded by fermions (pairs) modulating c by scattering all EM fluctuations/ 'photons' locally to c.
1, Absolute Time. However, Clocks are simply emitters emitting EM signals. Once emitted those signals may be Doppler shifted by the frame change process above, precisely as we find between media (just takes further when diffuse). We then have 'apparent (co-ordinate) time' which is observer dependent due to time and motion.
1, Absolute speed. All local propagation speed is c (or of course c/n in dense media). But here we need to apply a bit more intellect than we have been; The inescapable conclusion of the above is that all local speeds c are different, but unobservable. All observers at rest in all frames will then only find propagation speed c. Einsteins postulates ('SR') is then spot on. c is absolute everywhere, but of course 'everywhere' is moving! Think about it; How on Earth (lol) would any electron or proton know to re-emit light at any other speed than c??
From where I sit, though an intellectually challenge, it seems only the deeply indoctrinated can deny the above as both logical, consistent and corresponding with findings (all the evidence is stacked up in a mountainous pile!)
The Lorentz factor is simply the non-linear 'power curve' as Doppler blue-shifted wavelength approaches gamma. It may also be described as the DFM Optical Breakdown mode at max plasma density (defined). Note that atomic scattering is a real quantum mechanism complete with uncertainty, so SR is derived direct from a QM, if both slightly better defined to be unified. Note that plasma is a ~zero 'EM profile' (dark) quantization of gravitational potential (GR) which give a slight 'JM rotation' of optical axis (space-time 'curvature') including kinetically (from charge asymmetry) so finally recovering Snell's Law from kinetic reverse refraction and Maxwell's field transition, all as in the essays and papers.
So clocks and gravity may indeed be a bit of a 2nd order distraction as Tom suggests. The proposition is then SR's O,1,1, but with 'The Intelligent Bit' between also giving Copenhagen-like QM (moving observer lenses localise c). Could anyone help to falsify that ontology? ('Scientifically' would be good Tom. I've agreed it varies from current assumptions).
Best wishes.
Peter
