Well put. I certainly take exception to this statement. I think the issues I raise are very good cause. Can you justify ignoring the comparative tick rates of clocks when computing distance by d = v * t ? I reject SR because it violates basic physics and substitutes assumptions which have not been demonstrated as real in the 100 years of relativity testing. I reject relativity because it's assumption of nothing absolute results in reciprocity physical nonsense and never observed, while making the assumption that there is an absolute results in what we have actually observed and has been emperically recorded. I reject relativity because I refuse to abandon good sound physics principles for a concept based on the artifical limit of there being only two observers (FOR's) in the universe for calculation purposes. I reject relativity because GPS support my view which involves absolutes. I reject relativity because the arguement that frames of referance and relativity of simultaneity somehow makes it impossible to assess comparative physics is shear nonsense and requires accepting a "Many Worlds View" to claim it is physical and not perception. I dare say these are hardly "without cause".