One, I stated a claim and proved evidence that my claim is correct, which you responded to by not saying something that was relevant to my claim and any of the evidence.You are the one with the claim. it IS on you to prove me wrong and not the other way around. It's your assertion. It's your onus to provide the theory/evidence.
Note your own claim:
See, here's how this works. You made a claim that all the evidence points against. I asked you to back it up, while I provided a small part of the evidence that says you're wrong, along with simple examples of the phenomena.
Stamping your foot and saying "Nuh uh" is not a counterargument. Your personal preferences cannot apply when there are real, observed, and measured phenomena that support the mainstream view of Relativity.
If you can't bring yourself to believe in gravitational or acceleration time dilation, then you're gonna have to produce at least the rough outline of some model of how the universe works, because you have claimed the current one, for which there exists reams of evidence, is invalid.
"I am beating around the bush, how can you explain that what your observe the data that your senses send to your mind is accurate; can you explain the phenomena that you observed is what you think it is in the first place. your visual information are not proofs that visual information is accurate because they are only visual information, and science is just the study of that. Logic determines the answer not theories only based of mere observation. Why is what the information send to your consciousness by yours senses accurate, could the data be altered along the way, could something be fooling your senses?"
There are philosophies for or against, but to debate this question you need to be debated the question, read about those philosophies the logical reasoning. Don't debate the result of weather the a potential answer to the question debate the question itself.
I provided evidence, what the doctrine of science admits, what the creator of admits, what 99% of scientists would admit, what a little easy deduction could prove; that is not up for debate. What I am debating with you is the actual question itself and for or against based off philosophy that actually is for or against. You are not correct again about my not believing in gravitational or acceleration time dilation, everything exists somewhere right, what I debating is the accuracy of your senses; you cannot know what is accurate when getting the images has a high probability of being inherently flawed causing the picture to be altered.