Stopped Clock Paradox
I would like to introduce what I believe to be a new paradox involving relativity and twin stop clocks. The only mathematics needed to follow along is simply, “if A = B and B = C, then A = C”. The only physics required is that a photon is a singular bundle of light.

In this paradox the Relativity of Simultaneity postulate is setup between a train railcar and a train station wherein the trains sees one event to be simultaneous while the station sees a different event to be simultaneous. But in this scenario, only one of them can be true. The question is which one, if either?

The Clocks
Two clocks are designed identically such that if two photons simultaneously strike receptor cells attached to each clock, the clocks will stop. One, the station clock, is mounted above the tracks at a train station. The other, the train clock, is mounted such as to be in the exact center of an opened-top railcar on the train (by the train’s reference frame) when the moving railcar is centered about the station clock at 4:00-t (by the station’s reference frame).

The twin clocks are then sufficiently desynchronized so as to allow for them both to read exactly 4:00-t o’clock when the train passes the station and the clocks are transversely inline. This of course must be done considering the laws of relativity concerning the acceleration and speed of the train and the effect of that upon its clock. The alternative is merely to accomplish the simultaneity of the clock’s timing by trial an error.

The Flashers
But in addition to the clocks, two photon flashers are mounted on the railcar walls, one on the front and one on the rear walls. Each photon flasher also has a clock identically timed to match the centered train clock at 4:00-t.

Also each flasher is set to fire 2 photons toward the center of the railcar at exactly 4:00 o’clock minus the calculated time for a photon to travel to a centered clock (t). The objective being to have the photons stop each clock at exactly 4:00 o’clock. So with each flasher, one of its photons is aimed slightly upward toward the receptor cell of the station clock and the other slightly downward at the same angle reversed to meet the receptor cell of the train clock.

If the railcar could instantaneously stop at 4:00-t, all four photons would strike a receptor cell at exactly the same time and at exactly 4:00 o’clock. But since the train doesn’t stop, a question comes to mind as to which clocks will be stopped by the simultaneous photon strikes and at what time.

All photons involved are sourced from two equally moving flashers at 4:00-t. The front flasher releases two identical photons that have no reason to travel at different velocities from each other. The back flasher photons similarly have no reason to travel at different velocities than each other. And none of the photons have any means to know of or vary due to being inside or outside of the railcar.

It is speculated that a photon, like a radio wave, travels independently of its source and thus all four photons must travel at the exact same velocity covering the exact same distance in the same amount of time and regardless of which direction the flashers were moving or which frame of reference is used to take the measurements as long as only one is used.

Flash Timing and Positioning
In this scenario, it is not required that any clock or flasher be set to anything in particular at the beginning of the train’s run. The stipulation is merely that when the flashers are equal distance from the station clock (with regard to the station’s reference frame), they must both read 4:00-t and at that time, they are to flash.

Also it is stipulated that the train clock must be centered between the flashers at equal distance (with regard to the train’s reference frame) at the moment that the flashers flash and that all clocks read 4:00-t regardless of any prior settings, even if that means that the train clock and the station clock have to be slightly misaligned at 4:00-t.

Relativity
Galilean invariance or Galilean relativity is a principle of relativity that states that the fundamental laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames and lead to Einstein’s Special and General relativity theories. What this principle means in this example is that no matter which frame of reference is used to measure the paths of the photons, on the moving train or at the station, all four photons must be measured to travel the exact same distance over the same amount of time (t).

Relativity of Simultaneity
In this setup, there is nothing happening TO the flashers. They are already set to be identical and in sync at 4:00-t. The exact same influence from within both frames is applied to both flashers throughout the scenario. Nothing comes from either frame to set them off as they have their own internal clocks, thus the relativity of simultaneity doesn’t get involved and doesn’t apply to the setup before the flashing.

The simultaneity of the flashes is guaranteed for both frames due to the predesigned simultaneity through whatever means is necessary to ensure they flash at exactly 4:00-t as measured by both clocks and their internal clocks. Neither flasher has impetus to flash before the other from either reference frame. Thus both reference frames would see a simultaneous flash from the two flashers as by design, there is never an opportunity for the flashers to become asynchronous or misaligned with respect to either reference frame.

If you are one of the many who have become confused regarding relativity of simultaneity and believe that the Lorentz equations demand that the flashes cannot be simultaneous in both the train frame of reference and also the station frame, consider that such has merely been a misunderstanding of how to use the Lorentz equations. Einstein remarked that due to the time it took light to travel from different sources, one person might come to believe that two events were simultaneous even though another person would see them non-simultaneous. And consider the following;

In the following pictorials, two trains are first shown traveling the distance ∆x in the time ∆t. A clock is tossed onto each train, then photo flashed ∆t time later. The image of the train’s clock faces are reflected from each clock displaying their time reading at that moment and seen by everyone regardless of their distance from the flash. Each person will see the image at a different time, but there is only one image to be seen.

In the third portion of the pictorial, the two train’s are combined into one, showing that each clock face will still show the same time to anyone.

But since there is only one image to be seen regardless of which clock face and that image is broadcast everywhere, on board the train, the same image is seen as the train’s clocks readings.

So far, the flashers at the station have been used to produce the flash and thus light has traveled from the flashers to the train clocks. But the direction of the light from the light source hasn’t anything to do with the synchronicity of the clocks, so if we have the clocks flash their face image at that moment instead of the station flashers, we would get the same image.

It is clear that all, on board the train and off, will see the same image of the synchronized clocks on the train.

The flash timers mentioned in the paradox are clocks that flash at a given time setting, “4:00-t”. If they were to show their clock face as a flash, everyone would see the same image of “4:00-t” from both clocks whether on board the train or off. The train timers and clock are therefore synchronous in both frames at that one moment. The question in the paradox isn’t what will be seen or when the flashes occurred, but when they will be seen and by whom.

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.

Station Reference Frame
If we examine the paths of the photons from the reference frame of the station, we can see that two photons would strike the station clock simultaneously and stop that clock at exactly 4:00 o’clock. But the train clock, would be moving during the flight time of the photons and thus would no longer be centered. Thus the train clock would not stop.

Train Reference Frame
But if we examine the paths of the photons from the reference frame of the moving train, we see that the two photons aimed at the train clock will strike simultaneously and thus stop the train clock at 4:00. But the from the train’s reference, the station clock is moving in the backwards direction, thus the station clock, no longer being centered, would not stop.

The Paradox
When the train finally stops, each clock is examined to see if either has stopped running. This situation presents us with a paradox;

A) One clock has stopped – The speed of light is not constant for the other observer.
B) Both clocks have stopped – The speed of light is not constant for either observer.
C) Neither clock has stopped – The speed of light is dependent on an absolute frame.

Only One Clock Stopped
Since from either reference frame, the other clock is moving out of center, the principle of relativity and consistency of the observed speed of light requires that both reference frames must insist that their own still centered clock stops and that the other doesn’t. But since only one stopped, one of the reference frames did not measure the photon travel from fore and aft flashers to be equal. That means that either the principle of relativity and the consistency of the speed of light is incorrect or the simple logic of mathematics involved is incorrect.

Both Clocks Stopped
Since the center distance from the flash was changing for both of the frames with respect to the other, only one could represent an equal distance and speed of travel for the photons. That would imply that the photons inside the train behaved differently than those outside without having influence to do so. This would say that both frames saw the photons within the other frame travel at different speeds. The speed of light is supposed to be the same for any observer.

Neither Clock Stopped
If neither clock stopped, from the perspective of both frames, light did not travel an equal distance in the same time. This directly indicates that the speed of light is NOT constant for all observers, but rather has an absolute frame of reference of its own.

If we temporarily speculate that perhaps a photon carries with it a portion of its source’s velocity, we can rebuild the scenario.

If a photon traveling from the back wall of the train were to travel a little faster because the train wall was moving, we must accept that the distance traveled by the two aft photons will be greater than those of the two forward photons over the same period of time. With this speculation in mind, we can simply reposition both clocks slightly more forward so as to align them with a simultaneous collision with their receptor cells. But in so doing, we run across the exact same paradox merely repositioned.

If for some odd reason photons carry a negative component of their source’s velocity, we could merely reposition the clocks slightly back from center so as to achieve simultaneous collision. But again, we run into that exact same paradox. Each clock must stop if examined by its own reference and not stop if examined from the other reference.

Thus we can remove the concern as to whether photons travel independent of their source, leaving us with;

If Galilean relativity is true, the speed of light is constant for any observer, and the logic of mathematics is true, then both clocks must stop and also not stop, yet each can be seen to either stop or not.

Relativity and Science are entirely embedded in the logic of mathematics. Thus if the logic of mathematics is to be dismissed, both Relativity and Science become useless, whether otherwise true or not. So that proposes that we have to accept that the speed of light is actually dependent on an absolute frame.

So we are left with no choice but to dismiss as a false or useless doctrine either the principle of Relativity and constant observed speed of light with all of its numerous consequential theories and calculations, or dismiss all of Science and the simplest mathematics. Take your pick or keep fantasizing. I choose to keep mathematics and Science and accept that indeed there really is an absolute frame of reference from which all things can be measured.

I predict that if this experiment is done in reality, neither clock will stop which will reveal that indeed light has its own absolute frame of reference. But there is a trick involved in calculating the real time dilation involved.

Einstein relativity down and out. Maxwellian aether back up for round two.

===============================================================================================

Objection 1; Simultaneity of flashing

A) Flashers will not flash in sync according to one or the other frame
B) Flashers will not flash when they are centered about P1 according to one or the other frame

Math/Logic for belief; "The flashers being in a different position on the train will experience different time dilation"

============================================

Answer 1;
Revue the pictorials under “Relativity of Simultaneity” show above. The train railcar is already at velocity v and starts this leg of its run when centered at position P0. At that point, flashers F and B (Front and Back) are synchronized and set to flash together when the train reaches the station.

The train continues at constant velocity for an additional distance of d1 where it reaches the station. At the distance d1, the flashers are exactly centered around the station clock at P1. This process takes “tt” seconds to occur as measured by the station clock.

Train’s travel time as per station clock = “tt”
Train distance traveled per station frame = P1 – P0 = d1

Thus as measured by the station clock, at T0+tt, the flashers will be centered and equal distance from the station clock, one fore and aft.

Desiring the flashers to flash simultaneously at T0+tt station time, their internal clocks are set to flash after a time of T0+tt-tf where “tf” is any proposed time dilation component necessary to subtract due to the train being in motion. Since both flashers experience the exact same velocity together, tf is equal for both flashers. At that same moment, the train clock, being centered, is set to 4:00-t - T0 so it will read 4:00-t when the flashers flash.

Time of flash per station’s frame Tfs = T0+tt, at P1; 4:00-t
Time of flash per train’s frame Tft = T0+tt, at P1

Thus when the station clock reads T0+tt (4:00-t) the flashers will each have advanced from T0-tf to T0+tt and flash. The light traveling from the flashers becomes independent of the trains motion and both light rays from the flashers must travel the same distance, “dps”, to reach the station clock, one traveling forward with the train and one backward.

If the light is traveling at a constant speed relative to the station clock, at this point it can be seen that at T0+tt+(dps/c), as measured by the station clock, the station clock will experience simultaneous photon strikes and will stop.

Train Clock
But also back at P0 and T0, the train clock was positioned exactly in the center between the flashers and synchronized to them. The train clock experiences the exact same velocity as the flashers and thus at time T0+tt, when the flashers are centered around P1 and flash, the train clock will still be exactly centered between the flashes.

If the flashed light is traveling at constant velocity relative to the train clock, each ray, fore and aft, will travel the same distance, “dpt” as measured by the train.

Thus at this point it can be seen that at time T0+tt+(dpt/c) as measured by the train clock, the train clock will experience simultaneous photon strikes and stop.

Station clock stops at T0+tt+(dps/c) as measured by itself (4:00).
Train clock stops at T0+tt+(dpt/c) as measured by itself (4:00).

But since each clock and all photons can be measured by both reference frames, each reference frame can make a prediction as to whether the other clock should experience simultaneous strikes.

From the station’s perspective, all 4 photons travel the same distance, “dps”, before stopping the station clock. Thus the 2 photons aimed toward the train clock will also meet together at P1 and T0+tt+(dps/c).

The flashers flashed at T0+tt by the station clock when they were centered around the station clock and the train clock was still centered between them on the railcar at P1, as it never changed its centeredness.

Thus by the time the photons reach the station clock, T0+tt+(dps/c), the station reference purview is that the train clock had moved with the train and is no longer centered between the flash points.

Thus the station reference predicts that the train clock will not stop.

But from the train reference a similar situation must occur reversed. When the train reaches P1 (as precalculated by T0+tt+tf and P1-P0) and the clock and flashers read T0+tt at P1, the flash occurs. At T0+tt+(dpt/c), the photons meet the train clock to stop it. But by that time, P1 and the station clock are no longer centered on the railcar. If all 4 photons travel at the same relative velocity by the train’s reference, the photons aimed toward the station clock will meet at T0+tt+(dpt/c) and miss position P1 and the station clock.

Thus the train reference predicts that the station clock will not stop.

But this isn’t the case. The train would have to stop before the flashers fire.

This is not what Galilean Relativity, at least the part adopted by SR, means. While it is true that the spacetime distance travelled by any photon in SR is always 0, the the spatial and temporal distance between two points is not the same in every frame.

Einstein explicitly adopts the following as the principle of relativity: “The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.” (See On the electrodynamics of moving bodies.)

What this means is that if we have a good reference frame that we can do physics in, then we can use the same laws of physics in any frame that we can create that is moving relative to that frame (without rotation).

It is important to note that these two descriptions above are in two different frames, but they are also of two different sets of events. If the light left the flashers simultaneously in one frame, then it will not leave the flashers simultaneously in the other frame.

This means that the “paradox” arises only if we mistake one scenario for a different scenario.

Within that frame it sure better be (and is).

Apparently, you misunderstand the problem. Try reading slower.

I am a little curious how you would determine which flasher you think would go off first in either frame since both were treated by the exact same laws of physics the entire time by both frames.

But within one frame, we do not need a principle of relativity. Do you not understand this?

You need to read your own “paradox” slower. (If you actually worked out some of the numbers then you will see where you have gone wrong. This is why it is important to actually learn the mathematics of special relativity if one wants to critique it.)

This “paradox” is merely a (mistaken) reversal of the example in Chapter 9: The Relativity of Simultaneity, from Einstein’s book, “Relativity
The Special and General Theory”. ( marxists.org/reference/archi … e/ch09.htm )

The flasher on the train is synchronized with the train clock and not with the station clock. If they fire at the same time relative to the train, they do not fire at the same time relative to the station.

Relativity of Simultaneity does not apply.

I am a little curious how you would determine which flasher you think would go off first in either frame since both were treated by the exact same laws of physics the entire time by both frames.

In effect you are saying that it is impossible for NASA to send up 3 rockets such that at exactly the 5000 feet, the 2 outside rockets blowup so as to apply exact even pressure on the center rocket. If they use physics to ensure that the explosion is simultaneous from the ground reference and at 5000 feet, then according to you, the center rocket, being in flight, will never be able to experience that simultaneous effect.

If they try to adjust something, what would they adjust? How do they know which rocket to set off first?

I thought you wanted this paradox to apply to Special Relativity. If you want to do away with the relativity of simultaneity, then you have a paradox for some other theory.

The laws are the same, but the spatial and temporal locations assigned to events are different. This is the foundation of Special Relativity.

Well, yeah.

They use the equations of special relativity, if it is that important. (At the speeds of our rockets, the effects would be minimal.)

Look, do you want a list of references to go and learn Special Relativity? I can dig up a bunch if you would like.

It applies to Galilean relativity and thus pulls the rug out from under all relativity theories, especially the Relativity of Simultaneity.

Every point on the train as well as both flashers are treated exactly the same by the laws of physics. THE most fundamental concern of relativity (all of them) is that the laws of physics function identically within any and all reference frames.

1. The two flashers are identical from the start, by definition.
2. The exact same influence from within both frames is applied to both flashers
3. For either frame to later find one flasher out of sync with the other would mean that the laws of physics were different for one flasher than for the other in one of the frames but not the other frame.

How do you conceive that one flasher got out of sync with the other from either frame reference? Which one would flash first and why?

I would rather that you merely learn how to apply them yourself (and when you can’t).

We have already established that you were incorrect about the principle of relativity that Einstein used. We do not use Galilean Relativity in Special Relativity; we replace Galilean Relativity because we have to correct for the constant nature of the speed of light.

Yeah, but the laws are applying to events that happen in different assigned locations and times. But when we use the right translation between frames, everything works out. If we were only to use Galilean Relativity, things would not work out.

But identical how?

The flashers were only ever in sync in one frame. This has nothing to do with different laws of physics.

Clock behaviour is something that is established early in Einstein’s 1905 paper on relativity.

It looks like you have never bothered to learn SR. So why do you hate it?

PhyBang, you’re babbling. If you think that you can show mathematically which flasher would go off first for either frame, just do it. Else you are wasting time.

James,

Bravo! You have a profound and precise way of expressing both ideas and yourself. Since no one but you admitted to understanding my theory on “Consciousness:Pilot and Auto-pilot,” could you help me improve it? That is if you have the time and inclination.

James: this is a better example, but I still think you’re making too big a deal out of this. You’re attacking special relativity when you should be attacking the interpretation of special relativity. Make sure you read The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close paper to really appreciate the distinction. And please do note that light does travel at the same speed regardless of the emitter. That’s no speculation, the speed is dictated by properties of space, which Einstein described as a kind of aether in his 1920 Leyden address. As to how Maxwellian this is, is a finer point.

What your situation refers to indirectly is the error in Einstein clock synchronisation. Most people who know about relativity know about this, and it’s been talked about a-plenty. There’s a presumption that the out and back legs take the same time, when they don’t. Have a read of some of the material by Paul Marmet for more on this.

Simplify the scenario by having a train which is motionless at the platform when its front and rear flashers go off simultaneously. Then whilst the photons are travelling, the train moves forward. The station clock detects the simultaneous flashes and stops, but the train clock doesn’t. Because it moved. This is crystal clear. Nobody will argue with it.

OK, now imagine the train is way back up the track and moving at a constant speed when you set up the experiment and calibrate the flashers to emit simultaneous photons that hit the central train clock “at the same time”. From my motionless viewpoint on the platform, you’ve set the rear flasher to go off before the front flasher. So when we run the experiment just as the train goes through the station, the station clock doesn’t stop. Again it’s really simple. (I see relativity of simultaneity has been mentioned. IMHO people tend to make this over-complicated because they don’t understand that when we measure time we’re actually measuring motion. A clock clocks up motion. It always comes back to motion. Your motion alters your measurements of distance and time.)

The apparent paradox that you describe is a rehash of the “pole and the barn” paradox, which also applies to trains and tunnels, and trains and platforms. Let’s say both the train and the platform are 70m long, and you’re on the train moving at .99c. From where I’m standing on the platform, I might assert that the train is only 10m long. From where you’re standing on the train you might assert that the platform is only 10m long. We can’t both be right. And we’re not. Because length contraction isn’t “real”, and whilst it might seem real to you, it’s only how you see things. Like I was saying to PhysBang, a star doesn’t really flatten to a disc just because you step on the gas.

If you want to learn, follow the link I posted to Chapter 9 of Einstein’s book. He explains things very well there. In general, you should learn how to do relativity theory if you are going to speak of it.

If you want to deny that we can use the relativity of simultaneity in your scenario, then you has better come up with a really good reason!

Ast ot the burden of proof being on me, that is simply ludicrous. If you cannot provide a detailed description of your own “paradox”, then clearly your paradox is worthless. Clearly you simply want to hate Special Relativity and you want to convince those who can’t follow the science rather than those who do. (Something very similar to what Robert Close does, more’s the pity.)

Actually, what I am nailing to a post is a serpent in the garden of Science named, “Galilean relativity”. Special and General relativity and their descendants are merely the procreation and offspring.

Yes, I have every reason to believe that it does. I was just covering the bases of doubt. And realize that many argue against Einsteinian aether as eventually did Einstein himself. This scenario gets around the whole discussion. It doesn’t care what anyone’s theory has been. It doesn’t depend on anyone’s theory on anything other than very simple mathematics and the definitions involving movement.

With that, you get into problems of relativity of simultaneity. Each run is very simple and clear, but an objection can easily be thrown in concerning having separate events and each requiring a simultaneous occurrence. “What is simultaneous to the train is not simultaneous to the station.” In my scenario, I set all clocks during the scenario such that all simultaneity is already predefined. There is no opportunity for the clocks to become asynchronous in either frame.

Herbert Dingle, back in 1920 contended against the idea of relativity with the twin clocks counter argument. To his dieing day, he professed the simple logic of how the arguments against the twin clocks paradox were false, yet they wrote in his obituary that he was wrong, a rather needlessly inconsiderate and disrespectful thing to do. If you look today in wikipedia, you see an explanation of the experiment and a presentation of the supporting arguments favoring relativity void of the list of counter arguments that debunked each supporting argument with the false conclusion added that relativity won its case.

Paradoxes that involve length and time dilation and acceleration from different perspectives and stories such as the dual-slit experiment and quantum uncertainty give opportunity to confuse the issue before the eyes of the less informed. That is why I arranged this scenario not requiring any sophisticated mathematics or education in physics.

What we are fighting is not logic or Science, but the obfuscation of logic and Science; politics and religious fanaticism. What is or is not true is not really the issue as much as what is obvious to the uninformed. The foundation of Science is the “demon-striation” merely backed up by logic. But demonstration to the masses in matters that pertain to subatomic particles is deceptive due to having to believe that someone is being thorough and honest. What I have presented is not easy to contend against and wouldn’t really be all that hard to demonstrate.

Of course, that doesn’t prevent the PhysBangs in the world from playing Satan’s role in villanizing, accusing, obfuscating, and character attacking so as to maintain the deceptive religion of faith in the Quantum Magi and Relativity (as he demonstrated on the last thread). But note, once challenged, the Satanists cannot rebut with any actual mathematics, logic, or demonstrative examples such as to support their accusations. Character attack, insinuations, blame-shifting, and efforts to confuse the issue (political tactics) are all they have with which to contend, nothing of substance. Merely watch PhysBang to see it all in action.

It is a war of doubt casting against Truth, a war of deception, Satan against Science for the soul of Man.

Let’s see the mathematics of this simple version, then.

I stated it in the very beginning;

It is called the "transitive property of mathematics" and applies to almost every portion of the scenario, most specifically to the distances traveled by the photons.

Because the photons are identical (a = b,c,d) and each is treated identically (a + x), each will behave identically (if a+x = y, then b,c,d + x = y). The same logic of math is used throughout concerning all proposed movement and with both frames of reference. That is why simultaneity is not an issue, from either frame of reference, the flashers are treated equally after they have been synchronized thus they absolutely must still be in sync when they fire and from both frames.

The only course that TTU offered in mathematics that I didn’t take was Theory of Numbers, with which I would have also had a degree in mathematics. Today, I wouldn’t consider it in that it seems over the years, they have proclaimed thousands of names to memorize involving nothing but simple concepts merely applied to specific arenas. Although difficult to find in Wiki, they still use that name for that very fundamental property.

If you would like to say this, you are free to. But then you are simply denying special relativity. If you want to simply deny special relativity, then why bother to cloak your denial in a false paradox?

Clocks that are synchronized relative to each other simply do not stay synchronized with clocks that are moving relative to them. If you want to deny this and be taken seriously, then you will have some serious experimental and theoretical work to do. However, you are free to deny it all you want. You are not free to create a scenario that doesn’t use Special Relativity and then claim that the failure of your scenario to make sense shows a problem for Special Relativity.

If this claim of yours is true, you should be able to provide some simple numbers to your scenario, including the spacetime locations of the relevant events.

So now fundamental math is “denying special relativity”? As I stated, you are free to accept either math and Science OR relativity. It is your choice. I choose math and Science.

But if they are the SAME clocks, they certainly better else YOU deny the very foundation of relativity, “the laws of physics are valid [and thus equally confining] for all frames of reference.” The clocks were in sync and only the laws of physics have been applied to them from the perspective of either frame. If the clocks become asynchronous in either frame, a law got broken somewhere.

I do if I pose a scenario that debunks Galilean relativity. Without Galilean relativity, Special relativity is a dead stepchild.

Oh, I have no doubt that I could and that you would love that. It would give you more opportunity to obfuscate. No thanks. I will stick with the simple logic that math uses even in relativity as they make it too complex for the average person to follow.

But I have a question for you individually. Do you actually like Science? Enough to want to help it stay real and genuine to its original intent? IF, IF, relativity was actually wrong and you discovered it, would you go ahead like a faithful Christian/Jew/Muslim/Buddhist/Republican/Liberal or whoever and support the “cause”? If so, you help to destroy Science and make it merely a political/religious paradigm used to control the masses.

If you think as I suspect, after seeing the thousands of people involved in physics, that “they all can’t be wrong”, as so many have thought throughout history, realize that even in math, every theory and law begins with a premise often taken from an observation and if that premise happens to be in error, all of the thousands of people who didn’t look back (most of them by far), will be wrong. Thousands of people have argued against the ones you see, but their arguments are hidden behind the promoted and funded political preference. Scientists who don’t go along, don’t get along and that makes the political winner seem even more righteous.

At one time, everyone on the planet knew the Earth was flat. Some of those people were brilliant. How many later argued against the notion before one made enough noise as to be heard? Today we have more detailed knowledge. But with more detail, comes more opportunity to get confused. Mathematics helps. Logic helps. But the bottom line is that people can only focus on so many things at once and thus can become confused easily. That bottom line is what began ALL of the religions and most definitely the Abramic religions who seeing the effect, took it to its maximum advantage. Is Science to be merely another religion within which one is not allowed to question authority and demand that equal or better evidence/proof be given before belief?

It is not the fundamental mathematics that is the problem, it is your understanding of Special Relativity. You are confusing synchronization with the operation of the laws of physics. The laws of physics apply to events and determines based on where and when events occur what later events will (or will be likely to) occur and where. But in different frames, different events happen at different places and times. From the frame co-moving with the station, the flashers are not synchronized to they do go off at the same time.

What got broken is that the clocks were put in motion. This means that different things happen to them at different times according to the reference frame in which the clocks are moving. The laws of physics apply equally to every clock, but 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.

Special Relativity doesn’t use Galilean Relativity, it replaces it. Galilean Relativity fails because of the constant speed of the speed of light. You really are saying something equivalent to, “Without a Moon making green cheese, Special relativity is a dead stepchild.”

Oh, I have no doubt that I could and that you would love that. It would give you more opportunity to obfuscate. No thanks. I will stick with the simple logic that math uses even in relativity as they make it too complex for the average person to follow.
[/quote]
Relativity is not too difficult for the average person to follow. They teach SR to teenagers in some schools. You are selling short the readers of this board. By actually putting down the details of your scenario, we can see exactly what your description of the events is. SR is about the mathematical relationships between coordinates; only if one actually addresses this relationship can one actually address SR.

If there is a paradox, then let’s see exactly where it shows up. If there isn’t, then we can rightly dismiss the paradox.

I don’t really care for the “original intent” of scientists, but I do like science.

Special relativity is wrong, in a sense. That’s why it was replaced with General Relativity.

This is irrelevant to the basic mistakes made in your “paradox”.

Exactly my point. When the same laws are governing the same events, the same results are to be expected.

The flashers are never treated differently by anything. Everything that happens to one flasher happens to the other at that same moment regardless of which frame is use. There is no dependency between frames of synchronicity. That would give you a legitimate complaint, but it isn’t there.

No. That is NOT what that means. Both flashers are put into motion identically and at the same time, synchronously. The laws of physics do not allow for one to start behaving differently. There is never a moment where one gets treated any different at all. Which law would be being ignored such that one responded properly and the other didn’t?

You are claiming that the laws of physics change depending on the physical location of the objects. YOU are the one denying the very foundation of relativity by doing so. Something different doesn’t happen to an object just because of its location in space. That notion is absurd and has never been proposed by any Science.

Read the OP and think. It spells it out very clearly, I think.

Then I have no more to say to you in defiance of your faith and church (except that you are on the wrong forum).

But do you expect that every similar physical event happens at exactly the same time? If I do an experiment today, it happens today. If I do an experiment tomorrow, it happens tomorrow no matter how similar it is to the one I did today.

Again, you are talking about some fantasy theory that is not Special Relativity. I am not surprised that your fantasy theory doesn’t work out.

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.

If I light a match, the wood at one end is undergoing physical events quite differently from the wood at the other end. Where something is matters.

I know you think that. But it is obvious to me that you are wrong. 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. In the process, you might learn something yourself. But if you would rather foster your hatred of SR rather than your knowledge of it, go ahead and skip the details.

I guess that this is your defence in the face to difficult questions.