1. Originally Posted by CptBork
Here's the article MacM cited in his attempt to disprove the successful confirmation of Einstein's predictions regarding particle lifetime dilation. Notice the article was published in 1996 in a crank magazine called "Apeiron", whose articles seem single-mindedly focussed on disproving multiple aspects of modern relativistic theories. A little Googling led me to this link from which you can browse a summary of their publications going back to 1992, including the articles contained within.
I will only note that most anti-relativity is published in out of mainstream jorunals becasue they refuse to publish anything anti-relativity.

That is every paper produced and test claimed done must be repeated and verified by others. Each stands on their own quality.

I see nothing in terms of pointing out obvious flaws or tht any falsification testing has been done. All that is being done is wht you do which is point to the journal tht published it.

I'm rather sure mainstram rejected it or would reject it just as casually as you just have, without any actual consideration.

So I am not vouching for the test no more than I will vouch for H&K since it is known they cheated and still got published because they were pro-relativity.

2. Originally Posted by MacM
...Either address the basic physics issue of:
Where TT is Traveling Twin and RT is Resting Twin …...
I have already, several times told you, but once more:

TT travels a TOTAL contracted distance 2d < 2D, where D is the separation between the start and turn around points in RT's frame.
In TT's frame these two points are only d apart.

As both clocks, in their own frame mark off the same duration second, and both agree the other is separating from them at Speed , S, the duration of the trip is:
For RT: 2D/S
For TT: 2d/S

Because d < D, TT's clock records less than RT's clock does. Was that short enough for you?

If you, contrary to > 100,000 physics Ph.D.s and millions of intellignet well-read laymen, think that d = D, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that extraordinary claim that they are all wrong and ONLY you* are correct. Note “proof” is not your "common sense" or opinion.

I and all others here are waiting for you to give any real proof that d = D instead of that d < D.

------------------
* a self-taught, retired, power-plant engineer and business man, who is not even able to follow the mathematical derivation of SR from its two basic postulates.
---------------------
---------------------
BTW:
I would also like you to support your claim that matter contracts with speed as that also requires the simple theory Bohr set forth for CALCAULTING the radius of the hydrogen atom to vary with speed. (I.e. the computation of the "Bohr radius" does not make used the atom's speed.) At least quantatively tell how the contraction you postulate to occur goes as a function of the speed. And what is that speed measured with respect to? (Please remember that atoms experience very frequent and large accelerations in collisons with other atoms for their entire history, so don't given any of your "common rest frame" nonsense when answering.)

SUMMARY: You have stated far too much nonsense to be taken seriously.

3. Originally Posted by MacM
"You have declined to become indoctrinated even though I cannot refute your proof."
Billy and James have done the algebra with you before. I've attempted to engage you in a rational discussion where we go through, step by step, your method so that I can point out the mistake. I want to discuss your 'proof' but despite repeated requests you can't provide it. How am I to retort a proof you will not provide?

Basically you're claiming it's my fault you can't come up with the goods.

Originally Posted by MacM
and want to recite SR I have no interest in discussing anythign with you.
In other words you have no interest in making sure you're factually correct, you're rather make up lies and then avoid correction. Well an excellent example for your kids and grandkids.

Originally Posted by MacM
Now please explain to everybody how you propose to go 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the time and still claim clock tick time dilation.
I'll repeat my previous description of the thought experiment to make things clear :

Persons A and B sync their clocks standing at the same location. There's a marker post a distance L from where they stand. Person A doesn't move. Person B moves at velocity v, with gamma factor $gamma$, to the marker. Instantaneously he reverses direction, without changing speed, and comes back to Person A. They compare clocks.

We have 2 different coordinates, the (x,t) of Person A, and (x',t') of Person B. In the (x,t) coordinates B moves at speed v from x=0 to x=L and then back to x=0. Person A measures a total time of t=2L/v. Person B moves such that $\gamma$. This means in the moving coordinates of B, (x',t'), then the marker post is at x'=L/$\gamma$. And moving at speed v (or rather B sees the marker post move at him at speed v) he gets to the marker post at time t'=L/$\gamma$v. Turning around and doing the return trip gives him another t'=L/$\gamma$v time, bringing the total to t'=2L/$\gamma$v. He then compares his clock to A, who says t=2L/v.

Shockingly, with a gamma factor of $\gamma$ the moving clock has experienced 1/$\gamma$ the time of the stationary one. Holy crap, it's almost as it ITS BLOODY CONSISTENT. And where precisely did I need anything more than 3rd grade algebra for that?

Person A sees Person B cover the distance 2L at speed v in time 2L/v
Person B sees himself cover a distance 2L/$\gamma$ at speed v in time 2L/$\gamma$v.

The fact B sees the distance as 1/$\gamma$ what A sees it means the same speed gives less time. You do grasp that right? Halve the distance, halve the time. Quarter the distance, quarter the time. See where I'm going with this? Or do you need to ask your 165 IQ relative how to work it out?

I guess you need another delusion of grandeur to cling to now. I suggest you proclaim yourself Kind of Scotland. You know, start simple.

4. Originally Posted by MacM
I will only note that most anti-relativity is published in out of mainstream jorunals becasue they refuse to publish anything anti-relativity.

That is every paper produced and test claimed done must be repeated and verified by others. Each stands on their own quality.

I see nothing in terms of pointing out obvious flaws or tht any falsification testing has been done. All that is being done is wht you do which is point to the journal tht published it.

I'm rather sure mainstram rejected it or would reject it just as casually as you just have, without any actual consideration.

So I am not vouching for the test no more than I will vouch for H&K since it is known they cheated and still got published because they were pro-relativity.
My main issue with citing articles from non-mainstream sources like Apeiron, is that there's no real way to verify the data and thus to confirm or reject the analysis. I tried to read through the details of the paper you cited, but the link you gave won't even render the equations properly, making it unreadable.

5. Originally Posted by Billy T
I have already, several times told you, but once more:

TT travels a TOTAL contracted distance 2d < 2D, where D is the separation between the start and turn around points in RT's frame.
In TT's frame these two points are only d apart.

As both clocks, in their own frame mark off the same duration second, and both agree the other is separating from them at Speed , S, the duration of the trip is:
For RT: 2D/S
For TT: 2d/S

Because d < D, TT's clock records less than RT's clock does. Was that short enough for you?
Well since you clearly don't understand algebra and can't even do 3rd grade arithmatic, let me break it down for a dummy.

Assume A--------->B is 60 miles when measured at rest and the velocity we are talking about is 60 Mph. The Dilation and contraction is based on actual velocity of 0.866c.

Now that means the resting observer expects the trip to take 1 hour that is 3,600 seconds or 60 seconds (clock ticks)/mile..

Do you agree with that physics requirement? Yes/No

If No then this conversation is over.

Now while SR claims the traveling twin goes from A--------->B it also claims that the distance is only 30 miles and takes him 30 minutes. He is also traveling the same 60 Mph.

Do you agree with these physics? Yes/No.

If No this discussion is over.

Now you can see that going 30 miles in 30 minutes means it took him 1 minute/mile. That comes out to 60 second (clock ticks)/mile.

Hmmmmm. The clocks are ticking the same.

Therefore there can be no arguement about the time displayed on the clocks when the traveling twin arrives back because the clocks tick for tock accumulate time in lock step and the game ends when the traveling twin returns home.

That means the resting clock never reaches 1 hour and never sees him go more than half way.

There clocks are ticking in sync, no and's, if's or buts and that means they display the same accumulated time when he returns and SR is shown to be physically inconsistant.

------------------
Originally Posted by Billy T
* a self-taught, retired, power-plant engineer and business man, who is not even able to follow the mathematical derivation of SR from its two basic postulates.
1 - I have told you I am not going to keep responding to all this off topic, irrelevant and personal attack BS.

2 - I do want to correct your false accusation here that I was self taught. I attended formal college classes taught by degreed people.

3 - You don't seem to understand the difference between not understanding something and rejecting it. It is because you are blinded by your own ignornace that you believe anybody that doesn't accept SR doesn't understand SR.

If you ever pull your head out of the fog and realise SR IS falsified then you too will reject it.

Did you actually read and understand what "DoubleThink" is?

6. Originally Posted by MacM
...Therefore there can be no arguement about the time displayed on the clocks when the traveling twin arrives back because the clocks tick for tock accumulate time in lock step ...
Your error is in your bold text here. You leap for truths in each frame to falsehood about frame to frame comparisons.
I.e. You fail to comprehend even the most rudimentary concepts of RELATIVITY theory. (It is not called "frame and frame" theory.)

The clocks do NOT "tick for tock." Each ticks the same duration second in it own frame (as you even noted) and each is traveling at 60mph but the TT only went half as far as the RT measures the trip distance. Thus, his clock accumulated only half as many total ticks.

Alternately stated by correcting your error: There are two tocks of the resting clock for each tick of the traveling clock thru out the entire journey. So when together again, the TT has half as many ticks as the RT.

BTW, this 2 for 1 tick ratio is called "time dilation."

7. MacM:

You ignored the following post:

which shows once again how stupid your claims are.

8. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Billy and James have done the algebra with you before. I've attempted to engage you in a rational discussion where we go through, step by step, your method so that I can point out the mistake. I want to discuss your 'proof' but despite repeated requests you can't provide it. How am I to retort a proof you will not provide?

Basically you're claiming it's my fault you can't come up with the goods.

In other words you have no interest in making sure you're factually correct, you're rather make up lies and then avoid correction. Well an excellent example for your kids and grandkids.

I'll repeat my previous description of the thought experiment to make things clear :

Persons A and B sync their clocks standing at the same location. There's a marker post a distance L from where they stand. Person A doesn't move. Person B moves at velocity v, with gamma factor $gamma$, to the marker. Instantaneously he reverses direction, without changing speed, and comes back to Person A. They compare clocks.

We have 2 different coordinates, the (x,t) of Person A, and (x',t') of Person B. In the (x,t) coordinates B moves at speed v from x=0 to x=L and then back to x=0. Person A measures a total time of t=2L/v. Person B moves such that $\gamma$. This means in the moving coordinates of B, (x',t'), then the marker post is at x'=L/$\gamma$. And moving at speed v (or rather B sees the marker post move at him at speed v) he gets to the marker post at time t'=L/$\gamma$v. Turning around and doing the return trip gives him another t'=L/$\gamma$v time, bringing the total to t'=2L/$\gamma$v. He then compares his clock to A, who says t=2L/v.

Shockingly, with a gamma factor of $\gamma$ the moving clock has experienced 1/$\gamma$ the time of the stationary one. Holy crap, it's almost as it ITS BLOODY CONSISTENT. And where precisely did I need anything more than 3rd grade algebra for that?

Person A sees Person B cover the distance 2L at speed v in time 2L/v
Person B sees himself cover a distance 2L/$\gamma$ at speed v in time 2L/$\gamma$v.

The fact B sees the distance as 1/$\gamma$ what A sees it means the same speed gives less time. You do grasp that right? Halve the distance, halve the time. Quarter the distance, quarter the time. See where I'm going with this? Or do you need to ask your 165 IQ relative how to work it out?

I guess you need another delusion of grandeur to cling to now. I suggest you proclaim yourself Kind of Scotland. You know, start simple.
I've told yu I'm not interested in SR math. This basic physics exercise show it is inconsistant, so why gov through the motions. We know what SR claims and now we know it is BS. You can keep dooing that BS all you want but you have not addressed the issue by performing SR matrh.

What doe3s it take to get you to understand that reciting the theory does not prove the theory. You must respond to the simple fact as shown that both clocks MUST tick in synch even by the SR arguements.

The3 SR math is based on the SR assumptions but it is those assumptions that are invalid.

9. Originally Posted by CptBork
My main issue with citing articles from non-mainstream sources like Apeiron, is that there's no real way to verify the data and thus to confirm or reject the analysis. I tried to read through the details of the paper you cited, but the link you gave won't even render the equations properly, making it unreadable.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V03N2MON.PDF

10. Originally Posted by Billy T
Your error is in your bold text here. You leap for truths in each frame to falsehood about frame to frame comparisons.
I.e. You fail to comprehend even the most rudimentary concepts of RELATIVITY theory. (It is not called "frame and frame" theory.)

The clocks do NOT "tick for tock." Each ticks the same duration second in it own frame (as you even noted) and each is traveling at 60mph but the TT only went half as far as the RT measures the trip distance. Thus, his clock accumulated only half as many total ticks.

Alternately stated by correcting your error: There are two tocks of the resting clock for each tick of the traveling clock thru out the entire journey. So when together again, the TT has half as many ticks as the RT.

BTW, this 2 for 1 tick ratio is called "time dilation."
Again youo don't seem to know the difference between understanding and rejecting. I damn well understand that SR Claims that the traveling twin arrives at home when the resting twin's clock reaches 1 hour (in the example I posted) and Claims he traveled the full 60 miles.

But what you fail to understand or address is that that is physically impossible because as demonstrated both clock Must tick in sync because:

Where TT is Traveling Twin and RT is Resting Twin . Distance at rest between A & B is 60 Miles, veloicty in both frames isx stipulted as being 60 Mph:

According to SR:

RT records

A------60 Mile/60 Minutes---------->B = 60 ticks per mile.

TT records:

A-----30 Miles/30 Minutes----------->B = 60 ticks per mile.

Both clocks tick at the same rate and hence when the TT returns home - GAME OVER they both display the same amount of accumulated time and TT never sees the trip completed. The TT recording is false. It does not happen it is a falsely stipulated condition by SR.

BTW: Time Dilation does happen but it is strictly due to clock time dilation and not length contraction - Sorry you lose.

11. Mac 1226
But within the mathematics length contraction is arbitrarily inserted to make physics match preconcieved ideas about the universe
-It's not arbitrary, it's part of the primary condition to ensure constant light
speed.
Remember it's not mandatory to assume you are not moving. If you know SR and agree you are in motion and not the rest of the universe, then you adjust your clock for time dilation your clock will approximately equal the time on the earth clock, (allowing for minor accelerations and measurement errors). On an actual space trip at constant speed, you just program a clock to run at gamma times that of your standard clock, and you could read earth time directly.

1192
Not true. As I have indicated previously. If he knows the distance between points of his travel and believes his watch he would compute v = d/t and claim to have traveled faster, it is in fact ludricrus for anyone to arbitrarily conclude distance changed
-He can check his speed by reflecting signals from earth. If he finds his speed >c, which will ocurr above .70c, he can reflect signals from a mirror mounted in the forward direction. He will still get a finite time interval, showing he is not moving faster than c!
If he uses the earth measured distance, and divides it by his speed over a range of .5c to near c, his clock time will decrease faster than his calculated time. His calculated distance based on his clock will decrease proportionately, and in the limiting case at c, his clock would read 0 and his distance would equal 0, and the resulting graph would not be linear.
As mentioned in the above reply, the issue is his choice of frames, either he's
moving or he is not. If he is not, then the contracting distance is his 'explanation' for the early arrival of his destination. Because there is no external physical process that would produce this effect, and since the earth observer does not experience this contraction, it can be treated as an altered perception.

If spatial contraction was actual, the spacecan and its contents would also
contract, including his rulers, so how would the traveler determine a different
distance? His conclusion is only based on his clock reading!

12. Originally Posted by MacM:"“ But within the mathematics length contraction is arbitrarily inserted to make physics match preconcieved ideas about the universe
Originally Posted by phyti
Mac 1226

-It's not arbitrary, it's part of the primary condition to ensure constant light
speed.
Like I said it is an arbitrary construct to make the universe physics match reconcieved ideas about the universe. If you stop and think for just a moment and consider that the "Apparent" light invariance" might be an illusion of it's production and not an artifact of it's propagation then you can see what I'm am illuding to.

Also you need to remember that it also means you have rejected the concept of an absolute frame (even though we cannot find or use it) such that your view of relative velocity being symmetrical is in fact an absolute standard and what happens if you eliminate length contraction is you get time dilation but the trveling twin "Computes" a higher velocity.

In other words actual relative velocity may be universally symmetrical in absolute terms but if I go from A to B which is known to be 60 miles apart and do so in 30 minutes because my watch battery was low, I'll compute I drove 120 Mph. I will NOT see or think I only went 30 miles.

You on the other hand may have tmed my trip with a good watch and you would claim that I drove 60 miles in 1 hour. Now this matches SR predictions with no physics violatons.

Originally Posted by phyti
If spatial contraction was actual, the spacecan and its contents would also
contract, including his rulers, so how would the traveler determine a different
distance? His conclusion is only based on his clock reading!
They of course believe in frame dependent physical realities and claim his ruler isn't contracted in his frame the the distnce between points is. They claim his ruller is contracted in the resting frame however and that his clock is ticking dilated.

They find comfort in letting physical reality vary by observer perception. I do not.

13. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:

You ignored the following post:

which shows once again how stupid your claims are.
Unfortunately that post was not ignored it is just you reciting SR and claiming that:

If I drive from A to B which is known to be 60 miles at rest and my speed-o- meter isn't working and my watch is running slow (dilated to 0.5 normal) and I arrive in 30 minutes by my watch then it is incorrect for me to compute that I was going 120 Mph.

You prefer that I conclude that some how by magic the distance between A & B shrank while I was driving. Of course we all know that is the absurdity that SR tries to promote but what the diagrams I have produced prove is that such length contraction does NOT produce the claimed time dilation affect. So it is back to the drawing board for you.

14. MacM:

Originally Posted by MacM
But what you fail to understand or address is that that is physically impossible because as demonstrated both clock Must tick in sync because:

Where TT is Traveling Twin and RT is Resting Twin . Distance at rest between A & B is 60 Miles, veloicty in both frames isx stipulted as being 60 Mph:

According to SR:

RT records

A------60 Mile/60 Minutes---------->B = 60 ticks per mile.

TT records:

A-----30 Miles/30 Minutes----------->B = 60 ticks per mile.
Yes. In other words, each observer says his OWN clock is running at the normal rate. That AGREES with relativity. Nobody sees any time dilation of clocks that are at rest relative to himself.

To see the time dilation, consider RT's assessment of TT's clock.

When TT completes the trip, RT says TT has travelled 60 miles. RT looks at the accumulated time on TT's clock and sees that it is 30 minutes. RT's calculation of TT's clock rate (assuming it ticks once per minute) is:

30 ticks / 60 miles = 1/2 a tick per mile.

whereas if we use RT's clock we have

60 ticks / 60 miles = 1 tick per mile.

Therefore, RT and TT's clock ARE NOT SYNCHRONISED.

How many more times do you think we'll need to repeat this simple fact in different ways before you begin grasping it?

I mean, you used to know practically nothing about relativity, but lately you're just completely nuts. You've lost the ability to do grade 3 maths.

15. Originally Posted by MacM
You prefer that I conclude that some how by magic the distance between A & B shrank while I was driving. Of course we all know that is the absurdity that SR tries to promote...
I've PROVEN that it follows directly from the postulates of SR. You must have either (a) not read or, more probably, (b) not been able to understand, the thread where I posted the simple proof.

...but what the diagrams I have produced prove is that such length contraction does NOT produce the claimed time dilation affect.
Your diagrams are crap and prove nothing.

16. Originally Posted by MacM
I've told yu I'm not interested in SR math. This basic physics exercise show it is inconsistant, so why gov through the motions. We know what SR claims and now we know it is BS. You can keep dooing that BS all you want but you have not addressed the issue by performing SR matrh.
How is it BS when that is precisely what we measure in experiments?

Originally Posted by MacM
What doe3s it take to get you to understand that reciting the theory does not prove the theory. You must respond to the simple fact as shown that both clocks MUST tick in synch even by the SR arguements.
I've just shown that 'by the SR arguments' the clocks don't tick in sync. This is why I use SR mathematics, I'm not using theory to prove theory, I'm using theory to show theory doesn't say what you claim it does!

You say "both clocks MUST tick in synch even by the SR arguements. (emphasis mine) but I've just shown 'even by the SR arguments' they don't.

SR arguments do not predict the clocks tick in sync and when you work out the quantitative values of things and do experiments the tick rate difference I just outlined is what is observed in nature.

How are you failing to get this? You have gotten the SR arguments wrong and you have failed to realise the SR quantities are that which is observed. You have failed to falsify it on consistency grounds and you have failed to falsify it on experimental grounds. You have failed.

17. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:

Yes. In other words, each observer says his OWN clock is running at the normal rate. That AGREES with relativity. Nobody sees any time dilation of clocks that are at rest relative to himself.

To see the time dilation, consider RT's assessment of TT's clock.

When TT completes the trip, RT says TT has travelled 60 miles. RT looks at the accumulated time on TT's clock and sees that it is 30 minutes. RT's calculation of TT's clock rate (assuming it ticks once per minute) is:

30 ticks / 60 miles = 1/2 a tick per mile.

whereas if we use RT's clock we have

60 ticks / 60 miles = 1 tick per mile.

Therefore, RT and TT's clock ARE NOT SYNCHRONISED.

How many more times do you think we'll need to repeat this simple fact in different ways before you begin grasping it?

I mean, you used to know practically nothing about relativity, but lately you're just completely nuts. You've lost the ability to do grade 3 maths.
NO. You attempt to make physical reality a frame dependant quality. That is not realistic. The tick rate equality is absolute..

60 tick /mile is 60 ticks/mile in both frames. The empirical time dilation is due to clock tick dilation and not length contraction.

i.e. RT's frame is at 60 ticks/mile while TT's frame is at 30 ticks/mile and he computes a higher veocity.

Your problem is in the rejection of an absolute frame. In absolute terms relative velocity is symmetrical but at relavistic speeds when clocks start to dilate the local computation changes.

It is as simple as your watch running slow at everyday speeds. You will compute velocity differently than the physical reality. Actual velocity doesn't change just because your watch batteries are low but the local computed veloicty does.

18. Originally Posted by James R
I've PROVEN that it follows directly from the postulates of SR. You must have either (a) not read or, more probably, (b) not been able to understand, the thread where I posted the simple proof.

Your diagrams are crap and prove nothing.
And you choose to continue to ignore that I have read , understood and responded to each of your ludricrus assertions.

The postulates are not violated by the assertion that local velocity computes differently. Remember it is your theory that asserts tht the speed of light remains constant for all observers. So TT will still measure light as going v = c but compute his travel as being higher.

19. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
How is it BS when that is precisely what we measure in experiments?
Nothing wrong with the measurements. The error is in the assumptions of what produces them. Time dilation occurs by clock tick dilation alone without interjecting length contraction.

Interjecting length contraction just mathemtically rejects the existance of an absolute frame. The existance of which not only logically should exist but would not be readily dectected or understood.

Your theory is based on a negative finding. That is "Absence of Evidence" becomes "Evidence of Absence". BAD physics and logic.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
I've just shown that 'by the SR arguments' the clocks don't tick in sync. This is why I use SR mathematics, I'm not using theory to prove theory, I'm using theory to show theory doesn't say what you claim it does!
"by SR arguements". RIGHT. Now show by sound physics that that is possible. In both frames the results MUST be 60 ticks/mile. The clocks are and must be in sync.

Your problem is in rejecting basic axiom's of physics in favor of mathematical assertions which there is no physical evidence to support. i.e. - Post empirical data showing length contraction.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
You say "both clocks MUST tick in synch even by the SR arguements. (emphasis mine) but I've just shown 'even by the SR arguments' they don't.
No you miss the internal falicy of SR it claims v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t but then argues that time has been dilated when the truth of the physics involved preclude the TT from completing the trip according to the RT since the clocks ARE ticking in sync and according to RT he will have only gone 1/2 way there when it is claimed he has returned.

RT's clock stops when TT returns and it must display the same accumulated time. SR is internally inconsistant in it's physical arguements.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
SR arguments do not predict the clocks tick in sync and when you work out the quantitative values of things and do experiments the tick rate difference I just outlined is what is observed in nature.
No SR doesn't point that out for if it did SR would not exist. But I point it out because that is the physical reality.

......___TT__..._RT_........ Tick rates in both frames are equal. End of arguement.
v = 0/5d/0.5t = d/t

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
How are you failing to get this? You have gotten the SR arguments wrong and you have failed to realise the SR quantities are that which is observed. You have failed to falsify it on consistency grounds and you have failed to falsify it on experimental grounds. You have failed.
How have you failed to understand the SR arguements are physically inconsistant. It doesn't matter what is asserted it is wrong.

20. I really don't get why you're failing to grasp this. I've just explicitly demonstrated that if someone moves such that they have Lorentz factor $\gamma$ then low and behold the prediction is they measure $1/\gamma$ as much time as people not moving, ala the situation I described.

This is what is seen in experiments. So SR is both self consistent and consistent with experiments. Nothing you've said invalidates either of those points.