"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...

One could characterize this argument ..........................

Oh dear, I'm going to regret posting this.
Ralph, for YEARS, I and others have been asking you the same question, and
never ever getting an answer.
Modern physics explains the world extremely well, & has been tested times
over in a multitude of ways. Further more it is the basis of a huge range of
engineering products, from mobile phones to GPS to CD players
to...................... WHICH WORK.
(Oh my the way GPS includes relativistic corrections..............)

If there is some discrepancy, of course we need to improve our
theories.............

BUT WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO EXPLAIN? What discrepancy do you remove? What
unexplained observation do you explain?

************NOT***************** twenty screens full of verbose ****** that
neither I no anyone else will read, just answer the question in one or two
sentences...................... (short sentences!)

But one doesn't have to follow a lengthy mathematical argument to
see the probable fallacy in such speculations.

Lengthy mathematical arguments? When you paste screen fulls of unread
diatribe?
Maths is the ONLY way you will ever convince ANYONE who matters, because it
is the 'language' of physics. Without it, there are no quantitative
predictions, & without quantiative predictions there is no science or
engineering. Maths is precise & unarguable, words..........are not.
Furthermore, the results have to be consistent with the ENTIRE body of
scientific knowledge, not carefully chosen sub sets.
For example, if the electron mass does not increase close to c, how come its
energy keeps increasing when its velocity clearly does not? Let alone the
multitude of devices & observations that depend on other relativistic
effects.

Oh, I give up.

harvey