[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Sorry, I've might missed that - not on purpose...

Constant c is characteristic only for light. It is constant in all inertal frames

and it's value [c] doesn't undergo addition or subtraction from any other velocity.

You seriously don't see the logical contradiction here?

At a point in space, let's call it point A, a space ship traveling at .5c sends out a light pulse.

According to your first statement above, from the ship's frame, the light will travel out in front of the ship at the speed c.  That means after 1 second the light pulse will be 1 light-second in front of the ship.  And the ship is .5 light seconds from point A after 1 second.  So the light pulse has traveled 1.5 light-seconds in 1 second.  This is the only logic conclusion.

According to your second statement above the speed of light and the speed of the ship are not added, so the light pulse will be .5 light-seconds ahead of the ship after 1 second.

So that is big logical problem!
If the first statement is true then the second statement is false.
If the second statement is true then the first statement is false.
 
I am afraid that you are refusing to see the problems so you won't have admit your idea is flawed.

According to your first statement above, from the ship's frame, the light will travel out in front of the ship at the speed c.  That means after 1 second the light pulse will be 1 light-second in front of the ship.  And the ship is .5 light seconds from point A after 1 second.  So the light pulse has traveled 1.5 light-seconds in 1 second.  This is the only logic conclusion.

"from the ship's frame, the light will travel out in front of the ship at the speed c. That means after 1 second the light pulse will be 1 light-second in front of the ship" - yes

"And the ship is .5 light seconds from point A after 1 second" - yes, BUT ONLY IN THE INERTIAL FRAME OF STATIONARY OBSERVER, where point of origin of that light pulse remains stationary in relation to the moving star ship

"So the light pulse has traveled 1.5 light-seconds in 1 second.  This is the only logic conclusion" -  not when you include the part, which I've underlined above

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Maybe this will will help:

in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frame

In the inertial frame of stationary observer, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A2 which remains stationary in this frame.

In the moment of light emission A1 and A2 occupy the same spatial location in both inertial frames.

[Kryptid]

All values in the range of... what?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

All values in the range of... what?

in the range from 0 (velocity of stationary frame) to relative velocities v1 and v2 and from relative velocities v1 and v2 to the constant velocity c.

[Kryptid]

in the range from 0 (velocity of stationary frame) to relative velocities v1 and v2 and from relative velocities v1 and v2 to the constant velocity c.

Well, c doesn't equal zero, so it's wrong.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

in the range from 0 (velocity of stationary frame) to relative velocities v1 and v2 and from relative velocities v1 and v2 to the constant velocity c.

Well, c doesn't equal zero, so it's wrong.

Huh? Constant velocity c can't equal 0, Value of c is measurable  - light propagates at around 299792458 metres per second. So, it's completely valid..

Relative velocities v1 and v2 can gain any value in the range from 0 to c. Perfect. You couldn't get any better foundation for a model, that explain speed of light in relative motion

[Origin]

So the light pulse has traveled 1.5 light-seconds in 1 second.  This is the only logic conclusion" -  not when you include the part, which I've underlined above

You are correct, from the frame of the ship the light would have traveled 1 light-second in front of the ship and point A has moved .5 light-seconds behind the ship.  What I said was incorrect.
This still leaves the problem of the stationary observer seeing the light wavefront only being .5 light seconds ahead of the ship and space ship observer seeing the wavefront at 1 light-second ahead of the ship.

[Kryptid]

Constant velocity c can't equal 0

Of course it doesn't. That's exactly what I was saying.

So, it's completely valid.

Which is why your equation is wrong. Your equation says that zero equals the speed of light.

[Halc]

Matter being a probability distribution?  What theory says that?

About that - google: "wave function matter"...

I didn't see anything saying that matter was a probability distribution.
At best, one can say that the wave function of a system can be used to determine the probability distribution of the state of that system that will be measured. With that I would agree. It doesn't mean that a probability distribution is what matter is. There are those that posit that matter actually is a wave function, but a wave function is again not a probability distribution.

Quantum theory in no way suggests absolute simultaneity. Perhaps you are getting your mistaken information from pop youtube videos and such.

About that... google: "quantum entanglement and simultaneity":

Oh I have no doubt that you'll get lots of hits on a search like that, many of which assert the 'instantaneous' cause/effect, but QM does not. Most of the sites/posts are not in formats where peers can comment on them pointing out the errors. These posts would be torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well.

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=23258
"Operations on an entangled particle do in fact affect the partner particle instantaneously, if you choose to describe things as if events at one particle affect the other one.

Here the statement is conditional. "If you choose ...".  Yes, one can choose an interpretation where 'instantly' has meaning and there is faster than light causality, which necessitates effect before cause in some situations (like delayed choice experiments).  DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation is one of these choices, but since it makes zero empirical predictions, it is metaphysics, not science.

Actually, it was proven recently that if entangled partners interacted at any finite speed, then you could send faster-than-light signals. Since this wouldn't be consistent with special relativity, it is a proof that the interaction must be instantaneous ("infinite speed").

Non-sequitur.  Any local interpretation posits no interaction at all between the entangled pair, so there is no need for any signal, FTL or otherwise. Some interpretations deny wave function collapse. None of the interpretations are science. That's why they're interpretations instead of theories. QM is a theory and makes concrete empirical predictions, none of which involves FTL interactions.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/658/1/012001/pdf
Basic Theory of Quantum Entanglement and the Possibility of
Passing on Information Faster than the Speed of Light

Again, "possibility". QM does not disallow this possibility, and I never said otherwise.

This article seems to have been written by a complete amateur or high-school student. The web is full of such articles. Interesting that you need to reach to this level to find support.

"Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the Quantum
Liar Paradox
W.M. Stuckey1
, Michael Silberstein2,3 and Michael Cifone3
Abstract
The Relational Blockworld (RBW) interpretation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics
is introduced.

This talks about some interpretation (philosophy), not QM (science).  My statement was that QM does not conclude or posit FTL interaction between entangled particles, and you're citing nothing but sites about something other than QM, or articles written by non-physicists.

Absolute Space-Time and Measurement

"Abstract
The concept of simultaneity is relative in special relativity whereas, it seems to have a definite
meaning in quantum mechanics. We propose to use the invariant space-time interval introduced by special relativity as a benchmark for constructing an absolute notion of space-time. We also propose to illustrate that when no measurement is conducted on a quantum system its wave function lives as a wave in the absolute space-time but, when a measurement is to be conducted, we must switch to an ordinary observable frame of reference where the quantum system lives as a particle"

This seem to suggest a local method to determine an absolute frame, which would rock the world if it worked. I can probably find 100 sites/posts making similar claims.

Your choices of sources of information (and your total misrepresentations of every theory in your error laden OP) seem to suggest you're just a science denier instead of somebody genuinely trying to work out an alternative theory for something. I see little point in continuing the discussion then. I'm here to help, not to win a contest of who can find the most links to bad science.

Side note: Special relativity does not conclude or posit the lack of a preferred (absolute) frame. That would be a metaphysical assertion, and SR is an empirical theory.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

This still leaves the problem of the stationary observer seeing the light wavefront only being .5 light seconds ahead of the ship and space ship observer seeing the wavefront at 1 light-second ahead of the ship.

There's absolutely no problem with that. Read once again, what is written below:

in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frame

In the inertial frame of stationary observer, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A2 which remains stationary in this frame.

In the moment of light emission A1 and A2 occupy the same spatial location in both inertial frames.

In the frame of stationary observer, there's a displacement between the moving source of light and the point of emission. That's the reason why Doppler's effect is being observed - and since it is a symmetrical effect of relative motion, it can be observed in both frames simultaneously. The "issue" here, is the fact, that in the special case of light, it CAN'T be observed in the frame of light source (space ship).

Inertial frame of spaceship (light source):

Inertial frame of a stationay observer (space ship in motion):

I really don't know, how I can explain it to you better... YES - it is physically possible and YES - it is being actually observed. And it really shouldn't be so difficult to grasp...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Nice to see someone, who appears to be well educated and yet doesn't treat me like an idiot...

I didn't see anything saying that matter was a probability distribution.
At best, one can say that the wave function of a system can be used to determine the probability distribution of the state of that system that will be measured. With that I would agree. It doesn't mean that a probability distribution is what matter is. There are those that posit that matter actually is a wave function, but a wave function is again not a probability distribution.

I admit, that I might oversimply things. I'm nothing more but a mere (and humble) enthusiast of physics, so my language isn't often specific enough - here's, what I wanted to say by stating that "matter is a probabilty distribution":

https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/particletimeav.htm
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1501107/files/978-94-007-5461-4_BookBackMatter.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.05313.pdf

Now you should be able to get the general "jist" of my statement.
And my general point is here the fact, that hyperdeterministic SRT doesn't go too well with such probabilistic representation of physical reality - remember the famous: "God doesn't play at dice"?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02587
"On the Incompatibility of Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

As for this segment:

Matter being a probability distribution?  What theory says that?

About that - google: "wave function matter"...

I didn't see anything saying that matter was a probability distribution.
At best, one can say that the wave function of a system can be used to determine the probability distribution of the state of that system that will be measured. With that I would agree. It doesn't mean that a probability distribution is what matter is. There are those that posit that matter actually is a wave function, but a wave function is again not a probability distribution.

Quantum theory in no way suggests absolute simultaneity. Perhaps you are getting your mistaken information from pop youtube videos and such.

About that... google: "quantum entanglement and simultaneity":

Oh I have no doubt that you'll get lots of hits on a search like that, many of which assert the 'instantaneous' cause/effect, but QM does not. Most of the sites/posts are not in formats where peers can comment on them pointing out the errors. These posts would be torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well.

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=23258
"Operations on an entangled particle do in fact affect the partner particle instantaneously, if you choose to describe things as if events at one particle affect the other one.

Here the statement is conditional. "If you choose ...".  Yes, one can choose an interpretation where 'instantly' has meaning and there is faster than light causality, which necessitates effect before cause in some situations (like delayed choice experiments).  DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation is one of these choices, but since it makes zero empirical predictions, it is metaphysics, not science.

Actually, it was proven recently that if entangled partners interacted at any finite speed, then you could send faster-than-light signals. Since this wouldn't be consistent with special relativity, it is a proof that the interaction must be instantaneous ("infinite speed").

Non-sequitur.  Any local interpretation posits no interaction at all between the entangled pair, so there is no need for any signal, FTL or otherwise. Some interpretations deny wave function collapse. None of the interpretations are science. That's why they're interpretations instead of theories. QM is a theory and makes concrete empirical predictions, none of which involves FTL interactions.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/658/1/012001/pdf
Basic Theory of Quantum Entanglement and the Possibility of
Passing on Information Faster than the Speed of Light

Again, "possibility". QM does not disallow this possibility, and I never said otherwise.

This article seems to have been written by a complete amateur or high-school student. The web is full of such articles. Interesting that you need to reach to this level to find support.

"Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the Quantum
Liar Paradox
W.M. Stuckey1
, Michael Silberstein2,3 and Michael Cifone3
Abstract
The Relational Blockworld (RBW) interpretation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics
is introduced.

This talks about some interpretation (philosophy), not QM (science).  My statement was that QM does not conclude or posit FTL interaction between entangled particles, and you're citing nothing but sites about something other than QM, or articles written by non-physicists.

Absolute Space-Time and Measurement

"Abstract
The concept of simultaneity is relative in special relativity whereas, it seems to have a definite
meaning in quantum mechanics. We propose to use the invariant space-time interval introduced by special relativity as a benchmark for constructing an absolute notion of space-time. We also propose to illustrate that when no measurement is conducted on a quantum system its wave function lives as a wave in the absolute space-time but, when a measurement is to be conducted, we must switch to an ordinary observable frame of reference where the quantum system lives as a particle"

This seem to suggest a local method to determine an absolute frame, which would rock the world if it worked. I can probably find 100 sites/posts making similar claims.

Your choices of sources of information (and your total misrepresentations of every theory in your error laden OP) seem to suggest you're just a science denier instead of somebody genuinely trying to work out an alternative theory for something. I see little point in continuing the discussion then. I'm here to help, not to win a contest of who can find the most links to bad science.

Side note: Special relativity does not conclude or posit the lack of a preferred (absolute) frame. That would be a metaphysical assertion, and SR is an empirical theory.

Of course you are aware, that most of those sources are peer-rewieved (if some of them aren't then my bad), so you don't have any actual right, to dismiss their credibility. Everything, what you said in the citation above, is nothing more, than your educated yet still private opinion...

If you want to discredit any of those sources, you will have to show me some other peer-reviewed papers or aricles, which would prove things otherwise or directly contradict statements from my sources - and then we will be able compare, which source has better credibilty...

This is how I imagine a scientific discussion suppose to look like... But I can be wrong

Oh I have no doubt that you'll get lots of hits on a search like that, many of which assert the 'instantaneous' cause/effect, but QM does not. Most of the sites/posts are not in formats where peers can comment on them pointing out the errors. These posts would be torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well

Well, on this site:
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=23258
Quenstions are being answered by such people:
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/volunteers.php
While the one, which I've cited was made by this guy:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Zyp4QCAAAAAJ&hl=en

Do you suggest, that such people would be "torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well"? Are you trying to tell me, that instead providing peer-revieved scientific papers, I should be pasting here links to internet forums or reddit? With all due respect, somehow I put more trust in things, that are published on arxiv or iopscience, than in opinions of some unknown guy from internet forum....

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Constant velocity c can't equal 0

Of course it doesn't. That's exactly what I was saying.

So, it's completely valid.

Which is why your equation is wrong. Your equation says that zero equals the speed of light.

0 =<{...}>= v1 =<{...}> c <{...}>= v2 =<{...}>= 0

I can't see no "=" in here: "...> c <..."

[Kryptid]

I can't see no "=" in here

Well, I sure do:

0 =<{...}>= v1 =<{...}> c <{...}>= v2 =<{...}>= 0

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I can't see no "=" in here

Well, I sure do:

0 =<{...}>= v1 =<{...}> c <{...}>= v2 =<{...}>= 0

But there's no "=" between c and the rest...

[Kryptid]

But there's no "=" between c and the rest...

What does "<{...}> c <{...}>" mean, exactly?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

But there's no "=" between c and the rest...

What does "<{...}> c <{...}>" mean, exactly?

I see my mistake - it should be "...< c >..." and not "...> c <..."
and then

0 =<{...}< c suppose to mean: "all values greater or equal 0 and smaller than c

But this:

0 =<{...}>= v1 =<{...}< c >{...}>= v2 =<{...}>= 0

Will probably make sense only after everythng between 0 and c would be written as vectors with opposite directions

[Halc]

And my general point is here the fact, that hyperdeterministic SRT doesn't go too well with such probabilistic representation of physical reality

It does just fine. Of 13 interpretations of quantum mechanics charted in wiki, only four are deterministic, and yes, perhaps Einstein would have favored one of these deterministic interpretations since his distaste for true randomness was documented.  He also favored no information transfer faster than light, so a local interpretation might also be favored by Einstein. At his time, such interpretations that met both criteria (notably relative state formulation, Everett, 1957) was introduced a few years after Einstein’s death.
There are also non-deterministic interpretations that still do not involve any true randomness, so no dice rolling. I personally favor one of these, but do not suggest the others are faulty.

Of course you are aware, that most of those sources are peer-rewieved (if some of them aren't then my bad), so you don't have any actual right, to dismiss their credibility.

I pointed out the reasons why each does not back your assertion, denying the credibility of only the one that appeared to have been written by an amateur.  Most of the others were not speaking of QM theory, but rather specific interpretations. My claims were about the QM science, and not about metaphysical interpretations, each of which makes different claims as to if and when wave functions collapse.

Everything, what you said in the citation above, is nothing more, than your educated yet still private opinion...

No, each quotation (except the one) was just not contradicting my point since it was talking about something else.

These posts would be torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well

This statement of mine was probably over the top. Each post (again but the one) wasn’t wrong, it just wasn’t talking about QM theory. You need to find a post speaking about the theory itself and not some specific metaphysical interpretation of the observations.
There are plenty of valid interpretations (any of the 6 local ones for starters) that do not posit ‘instantaneous’ interaction between entangled particles. To maintain your claim that there is such an interaction, you would need to do what the physics community has failed to do which is to falsify each of these six interpretations. That’s your responsibility if you’re making the instantaneous claim. None of your quoted sources (except the one again) actually made the claim uncondictionally. They were all conditional on additional premises that QM theory does not posit.

Do you suggest, that such people would be "torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well"?

Only the one guy actually. I apologise for that statement since none of the others deserved it. They were simply all conditional quotes, none actually speaking of what the empirical theory states.

And for the record, I am no expert on quantum theory, but neither am I a dunce.

"So the light pulse has traveled 1.5 light-seconds in 1 second."

This statement lacks a frame reference, so is meaningless.
Relative to the ship frame, the ship has not moved, so the pulse has moved 1LS in one second. Relative to what you're calling 'the stationary observer', the pulse has also gone 1 light second after one second, and the ship has moved half that distance, so nothing is moving faster than light in that frame either.

[Origin]

in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frame

in the inertial frame of the moving star ship, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A1 which remains stationary in this frame

In the inertial frame of stationary observer, light pulse propagates at constant c from a point of origin A2 which remains stationary in this frame.

I'm not sure what the points A1 and A2 are.
It looks this way to me.
The scenario is there is a point on the x axis we will call A.  There is a observer at rest with point A.  A space ship flys by at .5 c along the axis.  Just as he passes point A, a pulse of light is put out.
From the frame of the observer at rest with point A, 1 second after the ship passes point A and the light flashed, the light will have traveled 1 light-second from point A.  The front of the light pulse will be .5 light-seconds ahead of the ship.
From the frame of the ship, 1 second after point A passes the ship and the light flashes the light will have traveled 1 light-second in front of the ship and point A will have moved .5 light-seconds behind the ship.
So from the ship's frame after 1 second the light pulse in front of the ship will be 1.5 light-seconds from point A.  For the observer at rest after 1 second the light front will be 1 light-second in from point A.

[Origin]

Unfortunately a lot of this thread is ending up being little more than hand waving.  I think the problem is your hypotheses has not been formalized enough to make it clear what is going on.
Space diagrams can be made for Galilean relativity and for Special relativity based on the associated transforms. 
You have taken Galilean relativity and added to it that the speed of light is constant.  What that means is the Galilean transforms are no longer applicable.  So there must be a new set of transforms that we could use to make a new space time diagram that reflects your modified relativity.

The Galilean space time diagram for movement on the x-axis is drawn based on these transforms:
x' = x - vt
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t

The Special Relativity space time diagram for movement on the x-axis is based on these transforms:

y' = y
z' = z


Where

What would the transforms be for making space time diagrams in your modified relativity?  You clearly cannot use either of the above transforms.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

And my general point is here the fact, that hyperdeterministic SRT doesn't go too well with such probabilistic representation of physical reality

It does just fine. Of 13 interpretations of quantum mechanics charted in wiki, only four are deterministic, and yes, perhaps Einstein would have favored one of these deterministic interpretations since his distaste for true randomness was documented.  He also favored no information transfer faster than light, so a local interpretation might also be favored by Einstein. At his time, such interpretations that met both criteria (notably relative state formulation, Everett, 1957) was introduced a few years after Einstein’s death.
There are also non-deterministic interpretations that still do not involve any true randomness, so no dice rolling. I personally favor one of these, but do not suggest the others are faulty.

Of course you are aware, that most of those sources are peer-rewieved (if some of them aren't then my bad), so you don't have any actual right, to dismiss their credibility.

I pointed out the reasons why each does not back your assertion, denying the credibility of only the one that appeared to have been written by an amateur.  Most of the others were not speaking of QM theory, but rather specific interpretations. My claims were about the QM science, and not about metaphysical interpretations, each of which makes different claims as to if and when wave functions collapse.

Everything, what you said in the citation above, is nothing more, than your educated yet still private opinion...

No, each quotation (except the one) was just not contradicting my point since it was talking about something else.

These posts would be torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well

This statement of mine was probably over the top. Each post (again but the one) wasn’t wrong, it just wasn’t talking about QM theory. You need to find a post speaking about the theory itself and not some specific metaphysical interpretation of the observations.
There are plenty of valid interpretations (any of the 6 local ones for starters) that do not posit ‘instantaneous’ interaction between entangled particles. To maintain your claim that there is such an interaction, you would need to do what the physics community has failed to do which is to falsify each of these six interpretations. That’s your responsibility if you’re making the instantaneous claim. None of your quoted sources (except the one again) actually made the claim uncondictionally. They were all conditional on additional premises that QM theory does not posit.

Do you suggest, that such people would be "torn apart on forums where the members know their QM well"?

Only the one guy actually. I apologise for that statement since none of the others deserved it. They were simply all conditional quotes, none actually speaking of what the empirical theory states.

And for the record, I am no expert on quantum theory, but neither am I a dunce.

Thanks for that! I was afraid, that I'm dealing here with another "if it's not fully consistent with SRT, then it's wrong" type of a guy

Truth is, that you can probably provide just as many (if not more) sources, that will be in a complete disagreement with my sources. What matters here at most, is for me the fact that in the case of QM and relativity big part of the general theory is still based on speculation and interpretation. Because of that, there's a huge open gate for us to further discussion and disagreement - and this is, what make physics so great!

This isn't the first internet scientific forum for me and I can say that here the community still seems to me to be much more open for discussion, that in most of other cases. Problem is, that each time, when want to discuss ideas, which are inconsistent with mainstream narrative, I'm beng treated as n. 1 enemy of the state by 95% of the local community, while my claims are being peremptorily rejected without a single question

I don't know why, but often my controversial claims are taken very personally, only because they don't fit in someone's stable and secure worldview.. It wouldn't be a problem if I would try to prove the flat Earth "theory" or discuss some other nonsense like "proof, that Jesus was from Mars" - problem is, that I speak about actual physics and in most of cases I'm capable of supporting my claims with peer-reviewed sources - and this makes me a very dangerous individual. Hard to count, how many times my threads turned into a total war: my person VS all others, only to be in the end closed by a moderator, when no one was longer able to counter my arguments - but at the same time threads like "scientists created a black hole in CERN and now we're all gonna die" are being kept open for years...

And when it comes to Einstein's relativity things get even worse - every statement, that stands in contradiction to SRT is treated as the worst kind of blasphemy. 98% of people from many different forums treat SRT as somekind of ultimate and undeniable solution to all the problems of modern physics (and there are coulple of them). Any attempt to question or (God forbid) disagree with some of it's predictions marks you as "the enemy", that requires a correction of mind or elimination from scientific society..

And in reality SRT still needs an empirical validation of around 50% of it's theory. Where's DIRECT experimental evidence of lenght contraction or relative simultaneity? There's none - while all other avaliable "in-direct evidences" can be interpreted in at least 6 different ways. I won't even mention about all the unsolvable paradoxes and logical inconsistencies, that still remain unsolved to this day. You have to be a genius, to base a theory on mechanics, that are theoretically impossible to test... Sure - let's just state: "time stops for you to flow at the speed of light"  and then prove it by making the speed of light impossible for us to reach. Or even better - let us just assume, that time exist in every moment of it's timeline and keep faith in future generations to prove it....

if you want me to believe in the transccenental genius of Einstein - here's my utimatum:
Give me an experimental evidence to relativity of simultaneity or lenght contraction. You should be able to do it using pairs of protons in a hadron collider. I want to see, if 2 pairs of protons will keep it's synchronsation of lenght and simultaneity after one pair gets accelerated  to 0,99c - you can also add a third pair, that moves at 0,99c in opposing direction. Simply measure the distance between a pair of protons in the direction of their motion in relation to the same distance in a stationary laboratory . You assume, that this distance will get shorter in the moving frame due to lenght contraction - am I right? Maybe for you as a physicist (if you call yourselve as such) deep faith in the genius of Einstein is more than enough for an evidence - but I'm not an educated physicist and I don't trust you enough, to take your word as a granted truth.  I require a direct epmpirial evidence - I want to see, if the distance between protons REALLY will become shorter for the pair in motion.

And only after it will possibly turn out, that "Einstein was right once again", I will start treat your funny theories, like that one known as "block model of univese", as something more, than fantastic stories about people moving back in time, to prevent their own birth from happening by killing the grandfather of John Connor or memories of a bad acid trip, where universe has (at least) 11 different dimensions and where everything what for someone can possibly ever happen actually happens and lives t's own life independent from the one, who saw a different outcome (I thinlk, that  in your relligion acolytes call it "many-world interpretation"). I also like cartoons from adult-swim and all those old-school holywood movies from early 80's and 90's - but in the difference to theoretical physicists, I dont believe things from Rick and Morty...

What do you say? That I'm asking for too much? HAHA! In the amazing case of Einstein's special-care relativity  It is as minimal as you possibly can get for a requirement of an evidence - it is at least possible for you, to satisfy my needs. I could for example ask for any possible evidence, that might suggest the physical existence of time beyond the moment of real-time measurement - good luck with that!

Sadly, until you won't provide me with the evidence I'm asking for (direct proof of lenght contraction) I won't change my anty-scientific behavior of endangering physicists to prolonged contact with those of scientific facts and theories, which shouldn't be mentioned by any well-behaving physicists after 10 years of academic indoctrination..

And if you believe, that we live in a world, which is based on the "block-model of universe", better keep a strong faith, that such results will eventually prove the lenght contraction, because as someone, who's being treated as a heretic for proposing an alternative model of constant c in relative motion by people who think that "Back To The Future" is consistent with actual physics I can tel you - it won't be good for you, if it would turn out, that Einstein wasn't exactly right in his bold assumptions...

And for end I would like to give you an example of a theoretical model of physics, which I consider as succesfull. For me such model is known as MHD (magnetohydrodnamics) - perfect example of a theory that seems to really work in practice - this is what I consider as physics. Sadly, SRT looks to me like story of a cheap sci-fi movie with more "-fi" than "sci-".

I hope, that you're smart enough to not take any of this personally