First part of that is true, but I am not stopping you or anyone from setting Vce = 0.6c or any other value your like, etc.
What you seem not to appreciate is that the algebraic approach is supperior to the numerical one in showing a conflict as it covers ALL Cases.
And what you don't appreciate is I have said I do not have THE answer. The fact tht a simple absolute view may not produce consistant resultts is irrelevant. So as I have pinteed out SR's mere relative velocity view.
My point is and has been that SR only works if you do what they NOW do which is consider frame switching (Who actually has velocity and not mere relative velocity).
Further that even that has been limited in what has and can be tested such that the truth of many scenarios are based on shear speculation by extrapolating known data intyo a mathematical THEORETICAL situation.
Math and algebra are not merely fine they are absolutely necessary in the final analysis to wowrk in the field; however, mathematics is a complete failure at predicting results in hypothetical and untestable situation.
When you assume because you have measured a clock dilated that has accelerated and had relative velocity to your lab clock that from the perspective of the accelerated clock your lab clock is dilated physically you are making a humongous error.
1 - It is a physical impossibilitiy for two clocks to each be ticking slowr than the other at the same time. Not room for arguement or claim of It is counter intuitive" It doesn't and can not happen - end of discussion.
Can two clocks "Appear" to run slow to each other WHILE in relative motion? Of course but that is not the issue ,the issue has been and is, that only the most accelerated clock accumulates less time. A restng clock is never physically dilated.
2 - By assuming #1 you have to ignore that your data was only recovered and valid because you rejected the resting clocks view in the first place by considering frame switching.
3 - It is not my claim to have the solution but that I point out the problem and the problem is that they talk out of one side of their mouth but do something different. What they do is a form of absolute motion not mere relative motion.
4 - So I don't really care what or if you have some evidence that simple absolute motion doesn't work. I already know that and have stated that openly. The issue however is that SR doesn't work on a relative velocity principle and they refuse to acknolwedge that.
That is why I have no interest in pursuing proofs against simple absolute motion.
5 - I have provided a couple of suggestion how we must begin to look at this to find the truth. The primary issue being that invariance of light is an illusion and not a physical rreality.
a - A simular process to Cenrenko Radiation where something moving v>c creates photons. In which case every observer with different motion to the light source is seeing different photons not an invariant photon.
b - A process simular to UnRuh. UnRuh has shown that an accelerating observer creates real particles out of virtual particles due to his acceleration. The energy to do that comes from the accelerating observer.
Where instead of acceleration I suggest that there may be a process by which photons are created by motion relative to a source via some undetectable spatial fabric.
These views suggest a dynamic multi-velocity spatial medium of which v = c is a fixed absolute reference based on total energy and which potentially also provides some insight into gravity, the accelerating expansion of the universe and particle entanglement.
Are these concepts fully developed? Absolutely not. Are they logical? You bet and they are far more likely than Einstein's relavistic time-space view.
So answer the failure of SR that is the current theory and stop being concerned about the fact that a simple static absolute view fails as well.