Of course not. But I was hoping that you were actually interested in discussing how things really work... That's an interesting insight into the way you approach a discussion, CANGAS. Do you always decide what you believe, then stick to it regardless of new information? Bullshit. Perception of light by an observer is used extensively in relativity exercises as the fastest possible means of gathering information, but it is not "the fundamental principle". It also doesn't imply that "that raw observation is the definition of reality", as you seem to think. Put up or shut up, CANGAS. Find a quote from any relativity text that states that the perception of light by the observer is the fundamental principle of Relativity. Find a quote from any relativity text that states that raw observation is the definition of reality. Name one. But according to your on-the-record understanding of what Special Relativity is, Pete's model is not a variation of it - it makes none of the errors you bemoan for Einstein's relativity. Of course, I think that it's because you don't understand Einstein's relativity, but I'm willing to take the plunge and say that I've misunderstood it and that my model is the real deal. Want to find out how deep the rabbit hole goes?