It is possible to derive SR and GR from hy hypothesis. And it is possible to derive postulates of SR and GR from postulates of my hypothesis.

But for the first, you've already assumed it with your Minkowski diagram, and during the derivation of the second, you have to assume arbitrary things in order for it to work out. You've simply used SR's postulates to get SR's postulates. Your postulates are thus the moral equivalent.

I never wrote it is not possible.

And neither did I, so I don't know why you'd bring that up?

And, as usually, you wrong. Postulates are only in "Model of the hypothesis" section of my article.

Are you saying your Minkowski diagram is something that you didn't assume? Please provide the complete derivation from first principles that led you to it then. Right now, as your article stands, it's pure assumption.

First postulate of SR was derived from postulate anbd model of my hypothesis, but it was not literally written as additional postulate.

I'm not talking about something being "literally written as additional postulate". As I said, you've assumed SR's first postulate with your Minkowski diagram, so it's no wonder you can then derive it. If you assume something, being able to derive that same thing isn't spectacular at all.

For second, about setting Vt to speed of lght - it is not postulate, it is about usage of observerd facts.

So... all your complains about me pointing out you using "maximum velocity" were nonsense? Great!

Also, no, the speed of light being a maximum speed is not observed fact, so you are wrong.

I derived Lorentz transformations,

By exploiting a mathematical mistake.

next I need to set value of Vt to match experiments. If set it to c, it would means it would satisfy to all known experiments.

So you now acknowledge that Vt is a velocity. Great! So why were you arguing it wasn't one before?

I know what Vt have units of velocity.

So... it's a velocity. In fact, you equate it to one, so that's only more confirmation it is one.

Problem is - seems as you read article very briefly.

If a brief read is enough to find so issues, a closer look is unnecessary.

In model of the hypothesis, it is not possible to set Vt to infinity, it must be finite.

That's only a limitation of your mathematical abilities. In SR, for example, it's easy to set it to infinity.

As for velocity, it is defined in same units but defined differently.

I don't care you define it differently: you setting it equal to a velocity proves it is one.

I remember you wrote what there is error in my equations, and they are not match to Lorentz transformations? I have not seen prove of it.

No, you've ignored my proving of it. If you haven't seen that, you've just admitted to another case of intellectual dishonesty.

So far, you is unable to confirm your words.

No, you ignoring my words doesn't mean they are not proven.