I can argue each one of those points. However, your leap, and where your proof is not a proof, is when you say that this is all because of the mind. Its not a proof, its your explaination, its as much as a proof as saying that volcanos errupt because of a god. I imagine many an ancient used volcano's to prove existence of a god. There are many other explanations for einstein's relativity, and even other explainations for lifegazer's relativity.
The acceleration of a body distorts the quality of that body's spacetime - whether he/it notices the changes or not. When the space-twin comes back to earth, for example, he has aged less than his brother, proving that his acceleration has slowed his time relatively to his brothers.
acceleration does, velocity does not. Even acceleration only warps space time in the same way that gravity does, so its nothing special. You almost have relativity, but you don't:
His experiences will seem 'normal'.
This is where it becomes lifegazer's theory of relativity. His experiences do not *seem* normal, they ARE normal.
I.e., the motion of a body does impact upon the quality of the spacetime which that body will experience.
like I have challenged you before, give me an experiment one could conduct to show their velocity. Your velocity changes nothing about the space time you "expereince".
Now, velocity is a parameter of distance and time. And so it is obvious that if each individual has a unique perspective of distance and time, that any velocity x m/s will be unique to that individual also.
The bozos from physics-forums didn't have the brains to realise that 'x' alone does not make a velocity absolute for all observers. The velocity-value is a combination of x and m/s... and if m & s are individualistic, then so is the velocity in itself of any and all values 'x'... or, in the case of light, 'c'.
I.e., light-velocity is not truly absolute in the sense it has been depicted (in our classrooms).
This, again, is where you lose sight of the theory of relativity. Lemme explain where this all started. Maxwell's equations describe the behaviour of magnetic, and electric fields. Changing magnetic fields give rise to electric fields and vice versa. You work out the Maxwells equations for these, and find that changing magnetic and electric fields can give rise to a propogating wave that travels at a velocity derived from the equations. It was soon discovered that these electro-magnetic waves are simply light, radio waves, etc.
However, there was a problem, the equations gave light a speed, but in relation to what? Many thought the ether, which was theorized to be the carrier of electomagnetic waves. Many then set out to find the differences in the speed of light from different directions to determine the earths speed and direction in this ether. No differences in the speed of light were found, which was puzzeling, because such a difference would be easy to detect.
Along came einstein and his thought experiments. He would imagine catching up to a beam of light and observing it, which would seem impossible, because then it would just be a standing wave, which cannot exist. He finally determined that the speed of light is a constant for *all* observers and derived the equations to explain the consequences of that.
You are calling einstein a bozo here. Maxwells equations show that the speed of light is always a constant. It never changes. This is the very basis for einsteins theory of relativity.
length and time and *not* individualistic. Since the speed of light is always a constant, its easy to determine length and time from it. Then, you can compare those measurements to other ways of measuring. Such as the rate of atomic decay, the stengths of fields, the number of atoms in a liter, etc. It all comes out the same.
These are the essential points of my argument, and they are not difficult to comprehend.
Yes, classical physics is not difficult to comprehend, which seems to be what you are stuck to. You apply classical physics to everyone, and then claim any differences that happen due to relativity must be due to some mind, as apposed due to the nature of the universe. Relativity is a part of our universe, not something outside of it. It is derived from Maxwell's equations, which describe the behaviour of electric and magnetic fields to a T.
This is your relativity:
If I accelerate through space, there must be a means (a reference) for knowing my own velocity at any given moment, and to know that I am actually accelerating. I'm not sure what this is (after reading your comments); but unless this is true, what price our mathematics of motion/relativity? What price 'motion'?
einstein states that there is no reference for knowing your own velocity at any given moment. *That* is einsteins relativity. General relativity also shows that there isn't even a way to know that you are accelerating, the effects of acceleration are identical to a gravitational field.
