MacM: FAIL again! You said you'd post examples of where I have contradicted myself etc., but you only posted things other people have written. This is an inaccurate and potentially misleading statement. Besides, you don't believe it anyway. Once again you are quoting something you don't believe in as authority. How strange. This is the first time I have ever sighted the source you just quoted. I did not write it. I did not rely on it. Therefore it is impossible that I have flip-flopped about this, distorted it or lied about it. You will now apologise to me. There is nothing wrong with any of this, but I wonder why you are relying on it, seeing as you don't believe a word of it. Note that it talks about length contraction, which you do not believe in. It also talks about time dilation, which apparently you now no longer believe in either since you think all clocks always tick at the same rate. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by continually quoting a theory you believe is wrong as somehow "proving" your nutty ideas. You're off with the fairies in la la land. I never said length contraction causes a "loss of accumulated time" in any frame. Length contraction is a separate effect from time dilation. I note again that I have PROVEN in a separate thread that length contraction and time dilation both follow from the postulates of special relativity. You can't have one without the other. Oh, and 1+1=2 still does not disprove relativity.