James S Saint wrote:PhysBang wrote:In the frame co-moving with the flashers, the flashers are not moving and they are synchronized. In the frame in which they were moved, one begins to move slightly before the other and they each begin to experience time dilation as they move. This leads to a failure of simultaneity relative to the frame co-moving with the station.
Who's scenario are you reading??
Yours, only I know how SR actually works, whereas you clearly do not. If you make the claim that two events separated by space happen at the same time in every frame, then you are simply violating SR.
In MY scenario both flashers get accelerated at the exact same time.
Only in the reference frame of the station. In the reference frame of either flasher, the other one is accelerated at a different time. (This is something that anyone taking an intro class on SR is usually shown in class or given as an assignment.)
PhysBang wrote:when a given event happens, along with the relevant interactions as given by the laws of physics, depends on the spacetime location applied by a frame of reference.
Well the time is the same, so the only difference in "spacetime" would be the spatial location. So you are saying that if two experiments are done side by side at the exact same time, you will get different results because one is located slight to the right of the other. That is NOT Science. You are precisely shooting yourself in the foot with such a proposition. It would make all of Science entirely pointless.
The two results should be different! The results of one should be at one location and the results of the other should be somewhere else! If you think that science experiments should magically overlap, then your problems run slightly deeper than they appear.
PhysBang wrote:If you want to convince me or anyone else who can actually follow the details of SR, then you need to work out the details.
Well fortunately you are a very small portion of my audience. You represent those who worship words and doctrines that they do not understand and also cannot see the simplest of logic that might contradict what they falsely believe their church has espoused.
However, the remainder of your audience can see that you make no attempt to actually engage in the scientific issues. While you whinge about scientists acting like some sort of religion, you want your audience to accept your pronouncements on science despite the fact that you don't provide any details and despite the fact that you get basic terms wrong and despite the fact that you apparently do not actually know much about the theory you are criticizing.
PhysBang wrote:But if you would rather foster your hatred of SR rather than your knowledge of it, go ahead and skip the details.
I am the one using reasoning. You, on the other hand, are merely espousing, "You are wrong! You don't know anything. You are wrong!"
I didn't just say that you are wrong, I pointed out where you are wrong and I provided you and others a link to where you could read the actual information that you are mangling. This behaviour of yours is very consistent: you make mistakes and then whenever anyone points out the mistakes you simply put your fingers in your ears and shout. I'm sorry that I'm damaging your ego here.
PhysBang wrote:I guess that this is your defence in the face to difficult questions.
That is my response to those who have placed blind and misplaced faith in what they know too little about and continue to squirm like a little worm that has been caught by its own "tale".[/quote]
Yes, I know too little about SR. I only got to study it in classes at graduate school. But my knowledge is irrelevant when anyone can follow the link I provided and see for themselves how out to lunch your claims are. To say that SR uses Galilean Relativity (and to get Galilean Relativity wrong) really takes the cake. I mean, that's really, really ignorant.