Purple dosn't beleve in relativity

Any time you're ready. --Percy

Here's your mistake: This is false. The distance from A1 to A2 is shorter for the observer - he still observes light moving at C.The rest of your presentation builds upon this mistake, and so is similarly flawed.--Percy

Time, distance and mass are all *relative* to the observer. There is no correct or actual time, distance or mass, only that measured by each observer in his inertial frame. It is the relative nature of reality that gives relativity its name.Relativity says that light will always be measured traveling at a speed of C in any frame of reference. Both your observers see light traveling at C in their reference frames, just as relativity requires.--Percy

Or course they're correlated. The observers can easily measure the relative velocity of their reference frames and freely convert measurements of mass, time and length from one to the other. The Lorentz coefficient allows you to calculate the length, mass and time duration for your own reference frame of measurements you make of objects and events in another reference frame, presumably in motion relative to your own reference frame else the conversions are trivial since in that case the Lorentz coefficient becomes 1. Your earlier error resulted from using both converted and unconverted measurements.The Lorentz coefficient is a conversion factor, not a correlation factor. I don't see an analog with your own work.--Percy

Since you don't even understand it, how can you have a problem with it? You need an example of something relativity doesn't get right.As someone has already mentioned, relativity and quantum theory aren't compatible. In any unified theory, one or both of them has got to give. If you looking for problems with relativity, I suggest you start there. One can only effectively play devil's advocate about things one already understands.--Percy

Great post!The only thing I can comment on is about scientists not wanting to upset the Einstein applecart. Nothing could be further from the truth, and in fact, scientists continue to attempt to verify predictions of Einsteinian relativity. One of those predictions is that a spinning mass will drag space with it, and there's a satellite being launched soon that will study this effect. This research project was recently scooped when a pair of scientists announced that analysis of satellite orbital positions over the past 20 years gave results consistent to within 1% of the predictions of relativity. They say they're currently working to improve the accuracy, because if the 1% error bars turn out to be an actual difference it would be a huge nonconformity that would mean that Einsteinian relativity would have to be modified, and it would be a sure Nobel.You don't win Nobels by blindly adhering to existing theory - you have to make an original contribution. The race has been on to prove Einstein wrong ever since his 1905 paper on special relativity and his 1916 paper on general relativity. So far Einstein has been winning, but that doesn't mean he'll win forever.I agree you received harsh treatment - I had a negative reaction to the post that seemed to assume we needed an education about relativity, and maybe some others did, too. The relativity paradoxes *are* difficult to think about for many of us, myself included, but over time I've formed my own set of personal visualizations and analogies that have been very helpful.--Percy