Bingo!
Time is a measurement of change.
We experience this as movement.
There is no temporal dimension… there is only change.
And change is how we experience existence - flux.
Spatial dimensions refer to evaluations of probable interactivity.
In reality in the reference frame of the box, it reached all the receivers at the same time. In reality in the reference frame of us where the box is moving relative to us, it reached all receivers at different times.
In both reference frames, all of the clocks stopped at the same reading. In other words, all references frames agree that each clock stopped when the clock read “x seconds”, for whatever x might be - they all agree on the readings. They have other disagreements about the clocks, but they don’t disagree about the readings from the clocks at the moment each clock stopped.
In relativity, of course.
_
I had edited to add:
“…so the only measurable change, being that of distance x ¿speed?”
…because those are the combined factors, that would be necessary for perspective to take place.
Light is the issue.
We perceive using light.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k[/youtube]
…the issue would still persist, with or without our -impervious- gaze, upon the/any proceedings.
Yes, because out perceptions have evolved to use light.
Light relative to our own perceptual speeds…that is the speed to which our brains process data.
we assume light is constant, because it makes things easier.
Light is the mediating energy pattern between us and the other, the cosmos.
Have they?
Is it/do they?
I think that we are the obstacles, to the resolution of the actual/correct reality… for our minds can conjure up whatever we want to believe or think.
Watching the second video now, of which the first sentence lost my interest at… I may or may not reply, hereafter… depending.
_
…I probably definitely, won’t be! 
No. That is not possible. That is like saying two runners in the 100 meter dash both ran the exact same time on the clock running in opposite directions, so they tied in the race frame, but another frame says one racer won the race and the other lost the race. That is total nonsense!
What you are indirectly claiming is that in my MD’s Box cube, that the light sphere center dot is always centered at the center of the cube. You MUST be claiming that because in order for light to expand away from the sphere center in all directions it must travel the same distance in all directions in any given duration of time, and in the cube frame in order to travel from the center of the cube to reach each receiver light must travel the same distance in the cube. So you MUST be claiming that the center of the light sphere is at the same point in space as the center of the cube at .65 seconds. That is shown to be false in the pic. The center of the light sphere is NOT at the same point in space as the center of the cube at T=.65 seconds!
I understand that you think that’s not possible in reality. Put reality to the side for a second, please, and allow me to ask you this: is it possible in relativity?
I’m not asking if relativity is true, I don’t care if relativity is true. I just want to know if you accept that what I described is possible in relativity, without any assumptions that it’s possible in reality.
What do you think? Is it possible in relativity?
You mean is it possible for an incorrect theory to get incorrect results? Absolutely that is possible.
If I make a theory with a postulate that is false then I should expect false results. BS in BS out.
So does that mean you accept that it’s possible in relativity, but you just also think relativity is incorrect?
Two runners run 100 meters in opposite directions. They both finish the race in 12.0 seconds.
The race frame calls it a tie because both runners crossed the line in the same amount of time.
A different frame claims one racer crossed the line before the other did so one racer won the race and the other racer lost the race.
What you are claiming is that both frames are correct. That can not be, that is impossible.
Right, I accept that SR is incorrect and it’s possible it gets incorrect results.
The only way SR is correct is when the cube has an absolute zero velocity in space. That is because SR has no way of measuring an absolute velocity in space greater than zero. Every measurement it makes assumes “at rest” which it doesn’t even have a a definition of “at rest”. “At rest” compared to what?
But isn’t that what you created this thread to debate?
From my understanding of your op, you’re taking a similar rhetorical track to James S Saint in his thread - which is a great rhetorical technique, completely valid argument style to use. What you both are doing, to my eyes, is…
A. Presenting a scenario.
B. Showing that, if you assume relativity is true, that scenario doesn’t make sense, is self contradictory, something along those lines
C. Concluding that, because assuming relativity is true produces a contradiction, that relativity must be false.
Is that an accurate paraphrasing of the basic argument outline presented in this thread?
This thread is proof that the second postulate of SR is not correct. I clearly show this with geometry and distance and time. You can not make a claim that SR says the light sphere contacts all the receivers in the cube at the same time. It is IMPOSSIBLE. The center of the light sphere and the center of the cube are at different points in space at every time after t=0 when the light was emitted.
If you think the light sphere contacted all the receivers at the same time then you are claiming that time was .5 seconds on all receivers, and that at t=.5 the center of the sphere was at the same point in space as the center of the cube. That is false. It isn’t possible that the speed of light can be measured to be the same to the different receivers in the cube.
So SR claiming the light hits all the receivers at the same time at T=.5 seconds is total nonsense.
Would you please answer the question I asked more directly? Is the outline I gave accurate, or do you think it’s not at all the structure of argument you’re making?
It’s otherwise known as “proof by contradiction” - you are proving relativity is wrong by showing a contradiction when you assume relativity is true. Is that accurate?
I don’t assume SR to be true. That is what this thread is about, that I start from scratch with the cube having a center, and the light sphere expanding its radius over time, and showing how much time it takes for the light sphere to contact each receiver.
SR puts the cart before the horse and claims in its second postulate that the speed of light is constant, and since the distance is the same then the time must be the same. I’ve shown that postulate to be false. In conclusion since the second postulate is false then SR must be false.
Okay, I thought you were doing a proof by contradiction to show that relativity is not true. If that’s not what you’re doing, then I don’t know what exactly your argument is. You keep coming up against relativity assumptions and saying “that’s impossible”. I don’t really have anything to say to that. You think it’s impossible. What can anybody say to that? I really have no idea. If you assume it’s impossible, and you’re not willing to even entertain the idea that it might be possible, then what else is there to say?
Relativity says it’s possible for two events that are simultaneous in one reference frame to be not-simultaneous in another. You can just assume that’s impossible, and then just reject relativity. What else is there to say?