Now we shall pass to the Ivese-Stilwell experiment. Note that Ivese himself was a SRT opponent and explained the experiment from the ether theory viewpoint (which means that such an interpretation is also possible). Generally, it is characteristic of SRT to "put" everything into a personal "pile" (probably, in order to look more solid) or to "tie up" SRT with all theories (even not completely verified), pretending that if SRT "sinks", then "all science will also sink". Generally speaking, unlike the elementary theory of the Doppler effect, determination of a frequency dependence in some arbitrary configuration is a prerogative of experiments (and an implication of an additional hypothesis for time here is rather doubtful). Actually, the Ivese-Stilwell experiments, even in the ideal case (with neglecting real features of a process) would determine not the transversal Doppler effect, but the Doppler effect for two directions close to and , i.e. the effects close to longitudinal ones. These experiments are indirect, since the value of a relativistic correction is a calculated quantity (which is compared, in addition, from various regions, which results in the additional asymmetry). The experiments  have shown essential systematic deviations from the relativistic expression (up to 6010). Therefore, the effect can be determined not so much by the Doppler expression, as by the feature of reactions in beams. In addition to mentioning the other alternative experimental data [22,120], we shall give some criticism of considered experiments. Relativists describe the experiment in such a manner, as if the transversal Doppler effect is perceived from one point of an installation at some certain time instant (the time of passage through the middle perpendicular). Actually, the perceived signal is an integral sum from various regions of radiation for various time, and these regions are, in addition, not perpendicular to the motion (where, for example, the aberration has gone?). That is, the studied effect represents some "composite mean value" between two longitudinal Doppler effects. Besides, the theory (and the formulas) in SRT are presented for plane-parallel waves, but in fact we have point-like sources, i.e. the spherical waves at these distances. We write lengths of sides in a triangle: 1) the first side describes a way of the signal along the axis Y from the source to the origin of the reference system O, where the receiver was situated at the moment of emission of the signal: Y0=ct; 2) the second side describes a passed way of the receiver along the axis X from the moment of emission to the moment of the receipt of the signal: X1=vt'; 3) the third side (diagonal) describes a way of the signal from the source to the point of the receipt: ct'. Then, from the relation of sides in a triangle it can be found the change of a time delay as compared to the case at rest: . In reality, we obtain the transversal Doppler effect for spherical waves which also exists both for light and in acoustics as well! As a result, for the real source the displacement into the red area will be observed (a greater time of action of such a displaced line), and the effect should depend on the distance to the observation point. And who could prove that the classical Doppler effect for plane-parallel waves must be applicable for light? This effect possesses the classical form in the case of pure wave motion only, you know. But if light is not entirely a wave, other expressions could be obtained, including the relativistic ones . Thus, the given experiment can not be unconditionally attributed to the experiments confirming the relativistic time slowdown in SRT.
Some relativists [38,107] distinguish three key experiments (by Michelson, Kennedy-Thorndike and Ivese-Stilwell) which should unambiguously result in the Lorentz transformations (a basis for SRT). We see, however, that all these three experiments are not evidential. SRT "hangs in the emptiness" even from the experimental point of view.