That of course is your perogative. It is unfortunate for you however, in that you were actually starting to learn something about relativity which you had never considered. But the closer you got to seeing that it cannot do what it is claimed the more frantic you have become to find a flaw in the process. Once you finally conceeded that ALL clocks can and were correctly stopped simultaneously and instantly in the view under consideration and that it shows that data implies physical impossibilities, that infact either Relativity and/or Simultaneity would have to be invalid, you suddenly decide that it must be that under the test description I established that it is no longer Relativity. Which of course is an absurd position. It does however, grant you room to back out gracifully claiming that it is I that is the fool and that Relativity therefore continues to stand unchallenged which of course is simply not the case. I would suggest that your repeating the assertion that the problem is my understandings of Relativity is in fact just the opposite. My understanding has exceeded yours and I have demonstrated that here. You have not told me one single thing about the process or claims of Relativity that I do not and did not already know and understand. Howelse do you think I have been able to bring you to the brink of having to admit that it is in fact a flawed concept, cloaked by a circular mathematical loop of physical reality impossibilities. I will repeat, it is wholly a false accusation to claim that Old MacM does not understand further that there is a major and most important difference in not understanding and not accepting. It is your perogative to claim I am a fool for not accepting Relativity just as you and SO many more poor blinded sheep do but it is you that show yourself to be a fool when you assert that I do not understand. I also repeat that it is you that repeatedly ignore the point that "Simultaneity of Relativity" in this case is no answer what-so-ever since it does not and cannot enter the data stream being considered. Your arguement that to properly establish the conditions of the test such that simultaneity no longer functions means that it is no longer Relativity is a strawmans dodge. It is in reality merely Relativity at one extreme limit of it's operating range. You have never taken Relativity apart and looked at it, you have only relied upon it and applied it to day to day situations. Hence I actually have a better understand of its functions than you. This unfortunately is a two ways street. What you say is true. I do reject your improper effort to sweep under the rug the fact that the data shows the impossibility of Relativity by merely repeating "But not according to the Theory of Relativity". What is it about the scientific process that you do not grasp. That is that the Theory of Relativity is not its own proof. It makes a good God Damn what SRT states or predicts. It is the theory being analyzed. Showing that it cannot possibly do what it claims to do but then to claim that proof is wrong because the theory proven false claims it is right, but where such claims are outside the range being analyzed, does not invalidate the proof of failure of the theory. You inability to make that jusgement (or refusal makes you frankly the fool). Your continued attempt to supplement Relativity by applying such principles DOES NOT change the data at the regimes of operation which I have posed. It is a false arguement that only masks the truth by trying to rely upon the claims of the theory to prove the theory. You can apply Simultaenity in the case in question (indeed it is applied) and the data you claim is correct. What you fail to realize is that it is unacceptable nonsense because in the frame being analnyzed, relativity fails to be physically possible. It is therefor shear stupidity to claim that by ignoring an impossibility in that frame (indeed it can be shown that the same impossibility occurs in all frames) since collectively by turning a blind eye in the final analysis, since it corrects itself in a circular fashion that it is OK. IT IS NOT. The old adage "Two wrongs do not make a right" could not be more applicable anywhere that I can think of. An easy thing to say but a bit harder to make stick on deeper analysis. Just how do you see (assuming that I can not perform that exercise, which frankly isn't correct) in any manner alters the proof you have just been given that Relativity cannot function. I have agreed many times that the mathematics and data are consistant. That is not the problem, being able to derive the formulas does not alter what the formulas predict. My data was generated using the formula which have been derived. There is no mathematical error in my data. Your point is pointless and is a simple attempt to cast negative enuendos toward me to reduce the impact my findings should have. You have however, not altered those findings. They stand and they show the theory is flawed. This issue about not being able to derive the formulas themselves is identical to saying a person cannot drive a car if they cannot design and build the cars engine. It is heresy and a poor mans dodge. Shame on you. Either show my data wrong or be man enough to admit defeat. Do not hide behind enuendo and distorted inapplicable issues. It has been a good run. But it simply is not fair to assert because you failed to prove your point that it is I that am stuborn. You have failed to show flaw in my data and test. That test shows it physically impossible for Relativity to be reality. It does end there even though you do not want it to and even though you, by default, using statements alone are opting out of the box you found yourself by arbitrarily claiming somehow that the case established (which you accepted) under the terms of relativity, somehow no longer is Relativity when its shows a conclusion other than one you want. Good luck to you and no hard feelings although I am disappointed. You seemed to have been actually learning something. Perhaps you would be kind enough to give an honest answer at this juncture before we part paths on this subject. Did you or did you not learn some things here that you did not know before? One last comment. It is ironic if you properly interprete your introductory statement: Legally it actually says that you are removing me from being considered a fool. Thank you. Fool. WEBSTER: Dismiss: (4) - To discontinue or reject a claim or action. To have said what you apparently wanted to say would have been" "I am dismissing you. You are a fool." But it turns out, for all your self proclaimed education, don't even know how to construct sentences which aren't opposite in meaning from what you want. Guess what that really says about you and your opinions. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! When you read this I just ask that you remember that you cast the first stone and if you think you will harrass me you will find that I can more than return the favor.