The only narcissism here is yours. You were not actually arguing with Doc Al or anyone else there; multiple people pointed out your basic mistakes in reasoning and you refused to listen to them.
No, I said that you could make up any bizarre scientific theory that you wanted, but that your peculiar theory would not be special relativity. I then directed you to a reference that demonstrated exactly what special relativity said and exactly how one derives the relativity of simultaneity. I provided references with simple explanations of the relativity of simultaneity because you haven;t read anything about it. It is clear that you have never actually read anything on the subject of the relativity of simultaneity because you are so amazingly ignorant of it in your writings.
It is narcissistic to argue against a theory that you have never read.
I began to propose my version of why they had to be in sync when you came up with the absurd notion that the reason your chemistry class experiment got different results than the others was because their desks were in a different locations in the room. With THAT, you proved with certainty that you have no idea what the reasoning behind relativity of simultaneity actually is.
My argument was that people doing the same physical actions at different locations and times got their results at different locations and time. You could not even understand that.
I asked you to show me exactly what you think Einstein said that led you to believe such an absurd idea. And exactly like a Bible literalist, you quoted an out of context verse that you misunderstood to mean that no two events could never be in sync if they are separated by any distance or time, “spacetime”.
I quoted you a section from a chapter he wrote demonstrating the relativity of simultaneity. That’s about as in-context as one can get! Did you read the chapter? I’m guessing no, since your writing continues to be absurd.
That is not what he meant by what he was saying in your quote. And frankly even if it was, merely by trying to apply his equations to the scenario, you would discover that your version could not be correct. As Carleas pointed out, the point to discussion is to get into the reasoning of what you believe, not merely quote passages and attempt to condemn the unbelievers.
I know that “my version” would not be correct for your scenario because your scenario violates special relativity with its very assumptions. This is because you do not understand how to use the reasoning of special relativity and this is because you have never taken the time to learn it.
After that point any arguing with you was obviously going to be pointless. I asked you to show your math/logic. You apparently couldn’t, just as I confidently suspected. You had merely memorized certain ideas that you misunderstood and some equations that you have plugged in to some prepared homework problems and thought you actually knew something. Calrid and Xunzian had to come and help you try to save face, again merely defending the realm with attempts at slander and obfuscation.
I think it’s quite clear now that you are simply slinging bizarre and obviously false accusations at me in order to deflect from your own failures in that thread. You should be the one actually presenting a detailed mathematical description of your own scenario. (You have claimed to have almost received a mathematics degree, but you have demonstrated no mathematical ability, even in the very basic mathematics required for your scenarios.) For me, and anyone who has ever read anything about special relativity, it is enough that you violate the relativity of simultaneity with the assumptions of your scenario.
If you have anything besides ignorance to offer in your original “stopped clock” thread, you would deliver on the details of your scenario. However, you have little but insults.