And as I might have mentioned earlier in this thread or elsewhere, relativity's clock postulate means that only instantaneous velocities, not constant acceleration, (like the acceleration that produces synchrotron radiation), really make any difference to time dilation. These ideas are not contemporaneous with Einstein or Maxwell. To take the idea just a bit further, time dilation means something distinctly different for unbound energy (photons, and to a lesser extent, electrons), than it does for energy bound in atomic structure. This must be the case, or else the law of conservation of mass/energy literally does not work. It does not work if time itself is set proportional to the speed of light, and this causes a division by zero and also the idea that time stops for a propagating photon (it does not), so this idea must be wrong. Electrons are unique in terms of not being completely bound in atomic structure, nor completely unbound. So understanding what time means to an electron is rather an important dynamic. I don't care if a second (Maxwell's) mistake of taking a partial derivative with respect to time works out or not, because the frame that was chosen is the wrong one anyway. At least, Lorentz took the extra trouble to try and keep the time in the moving frame vs the time on the roadbed straight. Maxwell didn't. What really is the point of identifying magnetic fields as relativistic effects involving compressed charge densities of moving charges if it is symmetrical with a frame in which time actually proceeds at the wrong rate? This is too complex an issue to fully explain here. Suffice it to say, the model is not quite right yet. Time is separate from space. Space is an artifact of time. Ancient Greek geometry is "classic" physics. It doesn't work at all for relativity, unless you are gullible enough to believe that the speed of light is the basis of time itself. It is not. Anything divided by zero is nonsense. Acceleration at the quantum scale doesn't mean the same thing either, or else electron clouds would spontaneously degenerate to lower energy levels. Entanglement is what makes this behavior (NOT degenerating or losing energy) possible. Acceleration can possess directional change without a magnitude, and with no loss of energy in the case of an electron. Entanglement is why. This is the process which binds energy with no loss of entanglement, like entangled photons propagating in a fiber optic cable, or reflecting from the surface of a plane mirror. You were a chemist. Even fourth graders these days are familiar with the binding energy vs number of nucleons curve, which led to the development of hydrogen nuclear weapons. Binding energy is important there. Why would anyone think it was less important or non existent for fundamental particles like quarks and electrons? Yet, no more fundamental force or process is ascribed to this anywhere in the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian dynamics of atomic structure. Strange. Maybe classified? Don't know. Don't care. Just care about what holds the universe together, and for no particular (pun intended) reason. Still think we know everything there is to know about charge conservation under relativity? Doubt it. The math and the model have some problems which no one has really addressed for more than 100 years. Posted deliberately in pseudoscience. I understand, I'm just too good at this to post it elsewhere.