Stopped Clock Paradox; Relativity Down for the Count

[PhysBang]

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

[James S Saint]

Yours, only I know how SR actually works,

Obviously not, but the worm still squirms.

In MY scenario both flashers get accelerated at the exact same time.

Only in the reference frame of the station.

The acceleration applied to each flasher is identical from both frames. In one frame, they both equally accelerate. In the other frame, they both do not accelerate.

In the reference frame of either flasher, the other one is accelerated at a different time.

Where did the scenario agree to that?? The scenario stipulates that both are treated equally and regardless of which frame.

The two results should be different!

Point out a single incidence throughout the entire history of Science where 2 simultaneous and identical experiments are expected to bring different results.

Your misunderstanding of even basic Science is getting absurd.

While you whinge about scientists acting like some sort of religion,

Don't presume that scientists and you have anything at all in common. I was not referring to scientists.

I'm sorry that I'm damaging your ego here.

I suspect that you are sorry that you are so damaging to your own. Your efforts to damage mine is getting ridiculous.

Yes, I know too little about SR. I only got to study it in classes at graduate school.

No no. Graduating from elementary school doesn't qualify as "graduate school".

I mean, that's really, really ignorant.

Yes, but you keep saying it.

This is like trying to explain the Bible to a Christian who knows that he knows that his interpretation is the only truth of the story when in fact, he has entirely missed the point.

You fail to understand relativity of simultaneity. It is that simple. To prove your case, simply display which flasher would go off before the other or which "starting moving" before the other and why.

[PhysBang]

The acceleration applied to each flasher is identical from both frames. In one frame, they both equally accelerate. In the other frame, they both do not accelerate.

Except that, as any SR textbook will tell you, there are no acceleration frames in SR. One has to use a series of momentarily co-moving reference frames and the two flashers will not share the same set of momentarily co-moving reference frames. You are welcome to show us your work in establishing otherwise.

The scenario stipulates that both are treated equally and regardless of which frame.

Then your scenario stipulates a violation of SR. Again, if you are just going to declare SR wrong by fiat, then why dress your rant up with a "paradox"?

Point out a single incidence throughout the entire history of Science where 2 simultaneous and identical experiments are expected to bring different results.

When I did a chemistry lab in university, the results I got were different from the same results that every other student did in the same lab. Each student got a result at a different location and a slightly different time.

While you whinge about scientists acting like some sort of religion,

Don't presume that scientists and you have anything at all in common. I was not referring to scientists.

OK, so you whinge about people on the internet not accepting your ideas, meanwhile you don't give any evidence to back up your own theory. You want people to simply trust your results without showing any details.

Yes, I know too little about SR. I only got to study it in classes at graduate school.

No no. Graduating from elementary school doesn't qualify as "graduate school".

So you have abandoned any attempt to actually make your "paradox" clearer and you are instead throwing insults.

I mean, that's really, really ignorant.

Yes, but you keep saying it.

And you keep on attacking the side issues instead of trying to defend your gross mistake. Obviously you realize it was a gross mistake to claim that SR used Galilean Relativity, but you aren't apologizing for making so gross an error, nor are you attempting to fix your error in your "paradox". Meanwhile, if I ever see you on the internet somewhere else, I can merely point to this thread and sway, "Here is the kind of buffoonery you can expect from James S Saint."

You fail to understand relativity of simultaneity. It is that simple. To prove your case, simply display which flasher would go off before the other or which "starting moving" before the other and why.

[/quote]
Which one starts moving first depends on the frame of reference used to describe the events.

[James S Saint]

The acceleration applied to each flasher is identical from both frames. In one frame, they both equally accelerate. In the other frame, they both do not accelerate.

Except that, as any SR textbook will tell you, there are no acceleration frames in SR. One has to use a series of momentarily co-moving reference frames and the two flashers will not share the same set of momentarily co-moving reference frames. You are welcome to show us your work in establishing otherwise.

The scenario stipulates that both are treated equally and regardless of which frame.

Then your scenario stipulates a violation of SR. Again, if you are just going to declare SR wrong by fiat, then why dress your rant up with a "paradox"?

So it seems that someone taught you that SR stipulates that no two events can EVER occur at the same time ("treated equally"). You must have had an interesting teacher.

Can you point out the rule of SR that makes such a claim? You should be able to find it on the Internet.

Point out a single incidence throughout the entire history of Science where 2 simultaneous and identical experiments are expected to bring different results.

When I did a chemistry lab in university, the results I got were different from the same results that every other student did in the same lab. Each student got a result at a different location and a slightly different time.

Hahaha.. why doesn't that response surprise me.

[Xunzian]

Well, I can't argue with a deft argument like that!

[Calrid]

And the next obfuscation batter steps up...

What you are saying happens only happens if two reference frames are relatively subject to the same motion and gravitation issues.

Which is exactly what takes place.

For example if they are relatively not moving in relation to each other or moving at the same speed relative to each other then simultaneity would be observed.

Haha.. so IF both reference frames are moving together, then we are ok? ..haha..

PhyBang was doing better. He just misunderstands the issue of simultaneity.

"..and really, down in the basement of the Vatican, they have the real photos of Jesus walking on the water.. really. You shouldn't argue. What do you know?"

What are you talking about really I don't think you even understand basic concepts.

You're in no position to be patronising, from what I've seen on that physics thread even the most simple of concepts are beyond your reach.

Obfuscation? Reality and experiment are obfuscations, you're priceless, living in a fantasy world but priceless.

Simultaneity is not conserved in co moving systems, it is entirely possible that an observer will see one flash before another, live with it.

[James S Saint]

You're in no position to be patronising, from what I've seen on that physics thread even the most simple of concepts is beyond your reach.

Obfuscation? Reality and experiment are obfuscations, you're priceless, living in a fantasy world but priceless.

Then propose an actual argument for a change.

The OP goes step by step. At what step do you think something is not be said accurately? And more importantly, can you support your objection with anything other than, "well the smart people said your wrong". Your, or PhysBang's, interpretation of their doctrine is a bit pointless.

Can you think for yourself or can't you?

[Calrid]

The acceleration applied to each flasher is identical from both frames. In one frame, they both equally accelerate. In the other frame, they both do not accelerate.

Except that, as any SR textbook will tell you, there are no acceleration frames in SR. One has to use a series of momentarily co-moving reference frames and the two flashers will not share the same set of momentarily co-moving reference frames. You are welcome to show us your work in establishing otherwise.

The scenario stipulates that both are treated equally and regardless of which frame.

Then your scenario stipulates a violation of SR. Again, if you are just going to declare SR wrong by fiat, then why dress your rant up with a "paradox"?

So it seems that someone taught you that SR stipulates that no two events can EVER occur at the same time ("treated equally"). You must have had an interesting teacher.

Can you point out the rule of SR that makes such a claim? You should be able to find it on the Internet.

You're not from this planet are you?

Point out a single incidence throughout the entire history of Science where 2 simultaneous and identical experiments are expected to bring different results.

When I did a chemistry lab in university, the results I got were different from the same results that every other student did in the same lab. Each student got a result at a different location and a slightly different time.

Hahaha.. why doesn't that response surprise me.

Reality and conformity with established theory shouldn't surprise anyone. The fact that you dispute reality is rather suprising, humerous but surprising.

Go back to school and learn basic relativity until you do you're just going to embarass yourself with stupid pointless questions because you can't it seems even understand the most obvious parts of relativistic mechanics. This is a waste of time, I think they were right on that physics thread, you're just a troll.

[James S Saint]

As stated above, can you think for yourself or can't you?

If so, explain the actual error that you presume to be in the OP with more than merely "they say different".

[Calrid]

You're in no position to be patronising, from what I've seen on that physics thread even the most simple of concepts is beyond your reach.

Obfuscation? Reality and experiment are obfuscations, you're priceless, living in a fantasy world but priceless.

Then propose an actual argument for a change.

The OP goes step by step. At what step do you think something is not be said accurately? And more importantly, can you support your objection with anything other than, "well the smart people said your wrong". Your, or PhysBang's, interpretation of their doctrine is a bit pointless.

Can you think for yourself or can't you?

I already have, the argument is that in all real world experiment your suppositions are false. Now can you think for yourself and tell me then why we should take anything you say as anything more than a joke, and a bad one at that?

What you are arguing does not gel with the real world, it is a fiction. Simultaneity is only observed in identical relative situations or where motional concerns can be ignored. At least in real world experiments, rather than silly mathematical sophistry that has no bearing on reality.

As I said the onus is on you to show us how your reality equates with experiment, if you can't then you should just remain silent and admit you are wrong. Just shutting up with the nonsense would do though. Go back to school, try and fathom the concepts then come back when you have that at least.

[Calrid]

As stated above, can you think for yourself or can't you?

If so, explain the actual error that you presume to be in the OP with more than merely "they say different".

they are spacialy separated for a start. But since you state they are both moving at the same speed relative to each other, all it proves is that relativity is correct. I've already said this but you seem to have ignored everything I say as usual. This is like talking to a brick wall. Ultimately pointless.

[James S Saint]

As stated above, can you think for yourself or can't you?

If so, explain the actual error that you presume to be in the OP with more than merely "they say different".

they are spacialy separated for a start.

Now explain what that actually has to do with anything. You are obviously already aware that "they" (presumably the flashers) are attached physically, so they move identically. So how could they ever be "out of sync" from any reference frame?

If, like PhysBang, you think that because they are in different positions regardless of being attached, one of them somehow ignores the laws of physics, then please provide your evidence for that, again without merely saying that you think "they say so", because in reality, they have never said that.

But since you state they are both moving at the same speed relative to each other, all it proves is that relativity is correct.

Not hardly. But relativity DOES require the truth of that at its very foundation. The theory is based on that notion.

I've already said this but you seem to have ignored everything I say as usual. This is like talking to a brick wall. Ultimately pointless.

I somewhat ignore you until you actually present a cohesive argument.

Of the 3 of you trying to debate this (in the typical political fashion), only PhysBang has actually presented any argumentation which merely consisted of "But that isn't how SR works. You don't understand physics." It isn't much of an argument and certainly nothing to respect, but at least he makes an argument as simple minded as it might be.

Frankly it is literally pathetic, as in "pathos" and "pathological".

[PhysBang]

So it seems that someone taught you that SR stipulates that no two events can EVER occur at the same time ("treated equally"). You must have had an interesting teacher.

Given the quality of your replies, I guess that you tried to learn SR from self-study and then gave up after a couple of pages. SR stipulates that no two events that happen that are spacelike separated can be definitively said to have a set timelike relationship. But you would know this if you actually studied SR. Since you haven't ever studied SR, why do you have such hatred towards it?

Can you point out the rule of SR that makes such a claim? You should be able to find it on the Internet.

I gave you the link to where Einstein discusses that very property of SR. However, if you want the details, go here: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

An introductory discussion more appropriate for your skills is here: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlig ... multaneity

If so, explain the actual error that you presume to be in the OP with more than merely "they say different".

If you are trying to produce a paradox out of what "the say", then getting what "they say" wrong is a serious problem. That you fail to realize this is yet another sign that you aren't likely to get far in any sort of reasoning. Perhaps this can be a wake up call to you, or perhaps you'll go on making the same simple mistakes over and over again.

Of the 3 of you trying to debate this (in the typical political fashion), only PhysBang has actually presented any argumentation which merely consisted of "But that isn't how SR works. You don't understand physics." It isn't much of an argument and certainly nothing to respect, but at least he makes an argument as simple minded as it might be.

Perhaps your mind has difficulty in comprehending things that you read; you have misunderstood my argument. I not only said that you misunderstood the relevant physics, I pointed out that you have failed to provide the details of the physics that would prove your case. You merely claimed that equal acceleration on each flasher would keep them in sync, but you never established this. Given your past performance, you don't actually seem able to work out a problem like this (despite your supposed mathematical ability), so it seems likely that you will go on whinging and never actually fill in the important details that would actually establish your case.

You seem a tragic figure, James: doomed to wander from thread to thread, making the same basic mistakes, because there is something in your nature that prevents you from learning anything more. Whenever someone points out a mistake, you merely assume that this person is pointing out the mistake because they have some vested interest in the outcome and so you never actually take the time to consider whether or not you actually made a mistake.

[Calrid]

As stated above, can you think for yourself or can't you?

If so, explain the actual error that you presume to be in the OP with more than merely "they say different".

they are spacialy separated for a start.

Now explain what that actually has to do with anything. You are obviously already aware that "they" (presumably the flashers) are attached physically, so they move identically. So how could they ever be "out of sync" from any reference frame?

If, like PhysBang, you think that because they are in different positions regardless of being attached, one of them somehow ignores the laws of physics, then please provide your evidence for that, again without merely saying that you think "they say so", because in reality, they have never said that.

But since you state they are both moving at the same speed relative to each other, all it proves is that relativity is correct.

Not hardly. But relativity DOES require the truth of that at its very foundation. The theory is based on that notion.

I've already said this but you seem to have ignored everything I say as usual. This is like talking to a brick wall. Ultimately pointless.

I somewhat ignore you until you actually present a cohesive argument.

Of the 3 of you trying to debate this (in the typical political fashion), only PhysBang has actually presented any argumentation which merely consisted of "But that isn't how SR works. You don't understand physics." It isn't much of an argument and certainly nothing to respect, but at least he makes an argument as simple minded as it might be.

Frankly it is literally pathetic, as in "pathos" and "pathological".

If one was on the moon the other 10,000km behind they'd observe flashes at different times? If one is 4 feet ahead and they are moving at the same speed, likewise unless distance concerns are exactly the same, honestly dude what is wrong with you, obviously distance matters as much as time does, hence space-time? Ok fair enough only a very sensitive machine would be able to tell which light pulse arrived first but simultaneity is not a conserved effect in different frames of reference particularly when different speeds are involved, in your set up nothing is established except that relativity is correct. if you can fathom why and that then your question is pointless. In fact this whole thread is meaningless but meh.

Your points are just straw men, no one is saying they observe different laws of physics, in fact they observe only one and that is relativity and that assumes that for a measurement to be meaningful then there are no discreet frames of reference and no absolute time. Setting up experiments where all conditions are identical in order to prove that relativity is illogical is meaningless, relativity says that all things being identical then there should be simultaneity. Apply a rotational transform to a concern 0,0 for relative differentials or relatively identical and the final differential concern will be 0,0.

If the photons are travelling the same distance and assuming therefore the two vehicles are travelling at the same speed then they will see the flashes simultaneously, in any other circumstance where distance or speed differ they will not although the distinction will not really be apparent except at speeds approaching c and or differing distances therefore. Time dilation and length contraction issues will then increasingly come into play.

Frankly it is literally pathetic, as in "pathos" and "pathological".

I really couldn't care less what you think about pathos or my state of mind, I do care though when people are so woefully unable to grasp something that they try and force their skewed interpretations on reality.

Oh and by the way if the clocks are placed above each other even a few metres then the exact gravitation will differ by an inverse relation with distance, this will have a very insignificant effect on the clocks and may not even be measurable. It may be a moot point but Einstein's general relativity would have to be taken into account even if it may well be ignored as significant.

Maxwellian aether back up for round two.

You said this originally, if this is true then why do the Michelson-Morley experiments not confirm aether theories by a margin of error in the billionths, why is all available evidence supporting relativity? If you don't want to answer why all experiment contradicts your views fine but you can't change reality by force of will, just because you fail to understand the implications of a theory. Neither maths nor logic are broken by relativity only simultaneity is. Galilean time is redundant. Clocks on global positioning systems go out of synch because of differences in gravitation and momentum, if they didn't you may have a point, adjustments made to the frequencies of clocks on the satellites allow for these differences. Relativity works in real situations, Galilean time does not.

[James S Saint]

SR stipulates that no two events that happen that are spacelike separated can be definitively said to have a set timelike relationship.

Nope. Pointing to your bible and saying "its all right in here. Read it!" doesn't cut it. You need to keep that kind of thing over on the religion forum.

Quote your bible exactly and then give your explanation of exactly what you think it said as it pertains to separated objects accelerating together and the magic of them not being in sync.

[PhysBang]

SR stipulates that no two events that happen that are spacelike separated can be definitively said to have a set timelike relationship.

Nope. Pointing to your bible and saying "its all right in here. Read it!" doesn't cut it. You need to keep that kind of thing over on the religion forum.

So you refuse to even read anything about SR? How is your behaviour not exactly like the "religious" behaviour you complain about?

Quote your bible exactly and then give your explanation of exactly what you think it said as it pertains to separated objects accelerating together and the magic of them not being in sync.

The burden is on you to demonstrate that your scenario makes sense. Show us exactly how your flashers accelerate.

[James S Saint]

So you refuse to even read anything about SR? How is your behaviour not exactly like the "religious" behaviour you complain about?

Simple, I demand that you think about what you preach. Show your logic.

Quote your bible exactly and then give your explanation of exactly what you think it said as it pertains to separated objects accelerating together and the magic of them not being in sync.

The burden is on you to demonstrate that your scenario makes sense. Show us exactly how your flashers accelerate.

No. I showed my logic. If you want to claim that it is in error, that is YOUR assertion to support with YOUR logic. If your logic is merely "but my bible says you are wrong", then as I said earlier, I have no more to say to you against your faith, except that you are still on the wrong forum.

[PhysBang]

No. I showed my logic. If you want to claim that it is in error, that is YOUR assertion to support with YOUR logic.

Your logic was simply to say, "they accelerate at the same time in every reference frame." But that's an assertion that needs proof before we can accept it, especially since SR includes the relativty of simultaneity, as anyone who can read knows.

If your logic is merely "but my bible says you are wrong", then as I said earlier, I have no more to say to you against your faith, except that you are still on the wrong forum.

I am not simply quoting some Bible, I am referencing the actual theory that you claim to be discussing. If anyone goes to read the links, they see immediately that you know nothing about what you are talking about. If you would rather whinge about being shown up rather than try to defend your position, that's fine with me.

[Liteninbolt]

Folks, not that I understand one iota of what is being discussed here, but could the participants in this thread doing so not get bent all out of shape. You'd think ideas being shared here are of life or death consequence. Countering arguments can be made showing data without useless bickering. I would say show the damning evidence which would facilitate some understanding, except I wouldn't recognize it if it flew off the screen and bit me on the backside. While I appreciate people's participation in this forum, it seems possible to me that civility should be an important attribute during discussions. Thanks.

[James S Saint]

No. I showed my logic. If you want to claim that it is in error, that is YOUR assertion to support with YOUR logic.

Your logic was simply to say, "they accelerate at the same time in every reference frame." But that's an assertion that needs proof before we can accept it, especially since SR includes the relativty of simultaneity, as anyone who can read knows.

No it doesn't. That is the setup of the scenario. If it isn't done that way, you are not doing the experiment right.

If your logic is merely "but my bible says you are wrong", then as I said earlier, I have no more to say to you against your faith, except that you are still on the wrong forum.

I am not simply quoting some Bible, I am referencing the actual theory that you claim to be discussing. If anyone goes to read the links, they see immediately that you know nothing about what you are talking about. If you would rather whinge about being shown up rather than try to defend your position, that's fine with me.

No. YOU are discussing that theory from your holy Scripture. I am talking about the scenario and the logical paradox it presents to Galilean relativity. Either quote and support your bible passage or bail out (just as Liteninbolt just said).

[PhysBang]

No. I showed my logic. If you want to claim that it is in error, that is YOUR assertion to support with YOUR logic.

Your logic was simply to say, "they accelerate at the same time in every reference frame." But that's an assertion that needs proof before we can accept it, especially since SR includes the relativty of simultaneity, as anyone who can read knows.

No it doesn't. That is the setup of the scenario. If it isn't done that way, you are not doing the experiment right.

First, you have no experiment, just a scenario. Second, if you want to imagine that, then you are simply declaring that SR is untrue from the start. If that's the case, then why try to decieve everyone with the "paradox"? If you can't do the mathematics to describe the acceleration in your own scenario, then you again demonstrate your inability to undertstand this subject.

But let's talk about positions. From here: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Einstein says, "So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system." If you want the demonstration, follow the link and read it. If you have never read that paper, then you are not simply irresponsible in attacking SR, you are just plain crazy.

No. YOU are discussing that theory from your holy Scripture. I am talking about the scenario and the logical paradox it presents to Galilean relativity.

Who cares about Galilean Relativity? It's already been shown to be false many, many times.

[James S Saint]

Second, if you want to imagine that, then you are simply declaring that SR is untrue from the start.

No. YOU are declaring it to be false by saying that it applies when it actually doesn't.

If you can't do the mathematics to describe the acceleration in your own scenario, then you again demonstrate your inability to undertstand this subject.

It seems that it is YOU who cannot do the mathematics that you claim causes one flasher to disagree with the other. YOU merely claim that they are not in sync. YOU cannot support that notion at all except to say, "Einstein said they won't be in sync", which he didn't really say.

By showing that Galilean relativity is incorrect, everything Einstein did becomes incorrect deduction because he assumed Galilean relativity as his premise.

Einstein says, "So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity,

Which I have NOT done.

..but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system."

Is that your confusion?

I take it that you never realized that he was talking about events taking place as in a collision that was generated within the moving frame (as in his railcar scenario relating to relativity of simultaneity). In my scenario, no such collision was proposed. The clocks merely maintain their sync because from either frame, they both experience the exact same influence. In one frame they both accelerate identically (else you didn't do it right, start over). In the other frame, they are not touched.

Thus from EITHER frame, the laws of physics do not allow them to be out of sync if they were originally in sync. To get one of them out of sync, you have to DO something to them and do something differently to one than the other. That is merely common sense as well as fundamental physics.

If you want the demonstration, follow the link and read it. If you have never read that paper, then you are not simply irresponsible in attacking SR, you are just plain crazy.

Yeah, anyone not worshiping your lord and master is "crazy".

Who cares about Galilean Relativity? It's already been shown to be false many, many times.

Obviously you do not know the origin of your scriptures and the prophets that wrote them. Einstein ASSUMED Galilean relativity before he began. Thus when Galilean relativity is shown to be false, special relativity and general relativity sink and have to be revisited if they are to be brought back to life.

The scenario very clearly shows that the very foundation upon which all relativity theories rest, is flawed.

If you think otherwise, SHOW THE MATH/LOGIC and stop merely quoting from the debunked scripture ("I know it is true because the Bible told me so.")

[PhysBang]

Well, I think it's pretty much established that you are simply a crank, JSS. If you seriously think that SR relies on Galilean Relativity, then you are, frankly, insane. I guess this is over.

(PS. You can't debunk crazy. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=422354 )

[James S Saint]

Well, I think it's pretty much established that you are simply a crank, JSS. If you seriously think that SR relies on Galilean Relativity, then you are, frankly, insane. I guess this is over.

Haha.. yeah. Since you cannot show the math/logic that you claim debunks it, I would say that you have little choice but to bail out.

Besides, all that you have been saying from the start has been a waste. The scenario stipulated that at 4:00-t all clocks would be in sync. So even if your imagined law of SR was true, all it would mean would be that when you began the run, the clocks (or flashers) would have to be desychronized enough to allow for any alteration that is proposed to happen merely because they moved.

You had actually lost before you began.

[James S Saint]

Just to make it more clear, I have added the following summary to the OP scenario;

Summery of the Setup
To summarize the scenario setup, let me go through it again with less explanation.

A station clock is set so that at 4:00-t a railcar will be passing by. On that railcar, fore and aft, two flashers are set to go off exactly when the station clock will be reading 4:00-t and also when they are equal distance from the station clock with respect to the station clock’s reference frame. So by design, the station clock must see both flashers trigger at exactly 4:00-t.

Also aboard the train, a train clock is set to be exactly centered between the two flashers when the station clock reads 4:00-t by its own reference frame regardless of how the station reference frame might view it. The train clock is then adjusted so that it too will read exactly 4:00-t at that same moment.

Thus at 4:00-t as read by either clock, both flashers are designed to flash. Simultaneity of the flashing and centeredness of the clocks from their own reference frames are guaranteed by setup design.