You have a point about my putting the ‘theory’ in quotes because it may appear to some that it is somehow a point against it. It is not. I apologize for that and I’ll restrain from putting it in quotes in the future.

Neither is the fact that the Poynting vector containing the mass-energy connection an argument against the theory in question. Sorry if this is how it is getting across. If you’re curious, though, you may convince yourself that it is not gibberish and nonsense that it contains the mass-energy connection by observing the dimensions it is expressed in. Poynting vector, is not the subject of discussion here, so I will not continue with it.

Further, as I have shown, and I, as I said, will repeat it briefly below for your convenience, the theory of relativity is incorrect in its entirety. There is nothing in it of use for physics neither is there any need for it to be substituted by any improved or new theory, let alone my pet theory. The weed is removed from a wheat field without the need to replace it by a new weed.

Caloric and phlogiston theories, as incorrect as they are, might have been useful in a certain way for Science unlike the theory of relativity which has only incurred damage—there has never been another instance in Science to have a theory based on internal contradictions gain so much ground due to imposing it by methods having nothing to do with Science. Even unphysical theories such as Astrology of Clairvoyance are not based on internal contradictions. Bible has internal contradictions but faith is not science, is it?

Now, here’s briefly my argument, as promised.

As is known at the start of the derivation, the second Newton’s law F = ma is valid in K for any velocity of the electron (not only for slow motion of the electron as Einstein wants us to believe). First postulate (“Principle of Relativity”) requires F = ma in K to be presented as F’ = ma’ in k and vice versa—first postulate requires that F’ = ma’ in k to be presented in K as nothing else but F = ma. Therefore, presenting F’ = ma’ in k as F = Ma where M =/= m, as Einstein has done by applying Lorentz transformations, is in conflict with the first postulate requiring, as said, F’ = ma’ in k to be presented only by F = ma.

This is a crucial contradiction between the first postulate and the Lorentz transformations which requires abandoning the theory at once and not continuing to use further the F = Ma which it does not derive (to obtain, for instance relativistic mass, E = mc^2 etc.), as Einstein does.

Thus, before telling me that I “have yet to explain why the predictions of SR are borne out in experiments so well” you have to explain how can the demonstrated contradiction be resolved. And if it cannot be resolved (as it obviously can’t) I do not need to explain “why the predictions of SR are borne out by experiments so well” because there simply cannot be such predictions at all and the claim that there are is nothing else but unscrupulous propaganda.