Simultaneity revisited still again

Discussing the issue with Gung regarding its validity in light of recent discoveries

http://able2know.org/topic/306691-1

The majority, Gung, are on my side. With perfect logic (according to my nutty idea), I can maintain that it's

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=relativity+proved


http://able2know.org/topic/219118-1

I will have to admit however that new discoveries in simultaneity to say nothing of the the Twin Paradox do shade a spot of doubt; even Einstein was a bit puzzled by the latter

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=twin+paradox+recent+simultaneity

So do entertain my 'relative relativity,' which easily explains it all. While I hafta admit it sounds crazy as hell, nobody here at a2k has been able to counter it


...conventional relativity having a built-in assumption it won't acknowledge: and that is, the subconscious presumption of time-at-a-distance that, for instance, when it's noon here and I turn on my flashlight, a similar clock (with which we earlier had been synchronized by conventional means) on a distant planet (with respect to which we're essentially stationary) is also reading 12:00

Of course Marty on that body sees my flash when his reads 12:05; so you and he conclude it took five minutes for the light to reach him. But I maintain that the speed of light is not necessarily c but is also relative in our concept of t-a-a-d so that its trip can be considered instantaneous. Thus put to rest TP as well as recent speculations about simultaneity