No. You invented a strawman and lied, like you usually do. And even tried the all too common tactic of accusing of your own guilt.
Why not just grow up and address the actual topic rather than your ego issues, PhysBang.
What are you talking about?
Where did I lie?
What is the straw man?
Are you saying that in your scenario, the clocks on the trains don’t match the clocks on the station? And if so, why the reversal?
Can you put that into words and equations, like everyone has asked all along? Your pictures are very confusing. I just want to know what you think happens simply describing the scenario without any concerns for relativity, considering the station not to be moving.
You make a lot of assumptions about relativity theory that seem to be flat out incorrect; let’s leave those out.
As I told Eugene, all I can do is put it in words, pictures, and then moving pictures. If that isn’t enough for you, then you really don’t qualify for learning it. The math is trivial, but I even stated the math for phyllo. Do you only read the replies given to you?
Eugene doesn’t learn enough to handle the more complex issues (such as photon reflection) simply because he tries to argue against every detail of even the simplest “primary school” concerns, such as his argument that any and all “waves” must always be sinusoidal and your argument that I didn’t tell you what “a”, “v”, “t”, and “d” mean thus I “haven’t said anything”.
Each of you want to preach your gospel. You can’t imagine that your authority figures have been wrong about anything, just as every religion throughout history. You are arguing “flat Earth” theory and express confidence because the authorities agree with it. Getting agreement from others is all that is important to preachers of gospel. The truth of such gospels is not important to them, only the belief. And the belief is obtain by spreading the stories of how it has been “proven”. All throughout history, it has been the same.
Of course on a philosophy board, you are supposed to be doing your own thinking, not merely going by gospel. Your gospel might be right, but it might not be. History would strongly indicate that it will almost never actually be right, but merely the current “Moonlight” that you are supposed to believe and hold faith in.
This whole subject from two years ago has been merely a Science related IQ test. And so far, everyone has failed miserably merely because of emotional concerns interfering with reasoning concerns. It hasn’t been an issue of what anyone has “proven” right or wrong, but whether you can actually think on your own. “Proven by”… whoever or whenever means nothing.
It is all merely a logic problem just like those posted in the “Math Fun” thread. And just like those problems, emotionalism, pride, and ego create a lot of interference. If there isn’t an authority figure given to “prove” the officially correct answer, mindless arguing continues.
I have given far, far more explicit detail on this site than I ever thought I would have to. Ed3, Carleas, Fixed Cross, and phyllo scored the highest. The women scored the lowest. The responses have been;
A) Too afraid of the subject matter
B) Defense of authority ego
C) Defense of presumptuous personal ego
D) Hatred of the presenter
E) Presumed irrelevance of the topic
F) Fear of cognitive dissonance
… all of which are the issue of emotion interfering with cognitive rationality, disabling people from being able to solve sometimes very simple problems in their lives as well as serious global issues. Every thread topic at this site exposes that same issue and receives the same set of responses.
I have mentioned on this site several times that my career was intelligence design concerning both machines and people. This has been merely a specially designed test. But don’t feel too badly, Einstein couldn’t pass it either (although I’m not so sure about the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz).
I can tell you the only rational answer to the puzzle, but in the face of such emotionalism, who would believe me? You each require an authority figure to tell you what is correct thought and what isn’t. Without believing that I am such a figure, you merely argue endlessly… and that was pretty much the point of the test, although I would have been quite pleased to discover otherwise because there is a great deal of room, vacant seats, and future for any who can and will actually hold to logical reasoning despite emotional pressures not to.
More about this:
James sees space as an unchanging expanse on which objects are placed. An analogy would be toys placed on a carpet. When the toys are not moving, they have a certain shape and distance separating them. When they are uniformly accelerated, they compress but the space between them is preserved… the carpet stays intact, it does not scrunch up under the objects.
If this is the way things work, then the Xs distance, which exists between the engines at rest, is seen as the distance between engines in motion… both by the engines themselves in their frame of reference and also by the station in its frame of reference. Simultaneity would be possible.
Phyllo, it has nothing to do with how I “see space”. Read my last post… and think.
I have thought. I believe that I have described how you are modelling the scenario correctly. All the things you said would happen, do happen within this model.
You just like to claim that you deal with reality and you are using logic … IOW you claim that you are not creating concepts or interpreting.
As soon as someone says ‘James sees …’, you go all defensive. You gotta get over that. 
Logic doesn’t have to do with “making claims”, nor anything that “James thinks”. Perhaps “get over” trying to interpret the incentives for what is being said (although I agree that to some degree such guess work is often required).
A logic scenario has been presented involving a paradox.
What is actually the “problem” to resolve?
Look, if you are claiming that you can’t do the math, then this is not true. You have tried in the past: physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=580632
In this thread, you keep changing the nature of the scenario; in order that your scenario is not impossibly vague, you need to give an example with specifics.
Yes, in physics, all objects have some acceleration or velocity. It is not enough to merely say that an object has a velocity, one has to specify the value of that velocity to distinguish one physical scenario from another.
The only one preaching here is you: you constantly claim that you have a physics scenario that is a problem for relativity theory, yet you can’t even produce the specifics of your own scenario.
So let’s see your thinking: let’s see how your scenario actually plays out when you provide us some specifics. You want us to have faith that your scenario makes sense, but all you are prepared to say is that trains move, not how, where, or when.
Sure, everyone on the internet who has ever learned physics disagrees with you not because you are wrong, but because they are emotional. Does that sound reasonable to you?
So finish the problem by giving the details of the problem. You want us to have faith in your problem without presenting it.
It’s nice of you to create an ad hominem attack on everyone here, but that does not excuse what happened here: physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=580632
I am not afraid of the topic, and whether or not I have any respect for you is irrelevant to whether or not you have presented any significant details about your ever changing scenario.
Like many crackpots, you claim to be smarter than Einstein. The evidence says otherwise: not only have you said many mistaken things about Einstein, we know from experimental results that Einstein was right.
So you got what you asked for: I provided actual formulas for this scenario. You seemingly cannot or will not engage your own scenario.
The first question to answer : Does it make sense that the Xs distance is preserved?
What Physbang did when he presented some calculations: he immediately applied the transformation. Before that happens, one has to decide whether those equations are applicable. If the space between objects does not contract, then those equations only apply to the objects themselves.
Two Thoughts are evident concerning that; “Thought A” and “Thought B”.
It is up to you to resolve which of those is more justified… and WHY.
No matter which you had chosen, I would ask why the other isn’t justified.
You and Phys chose to defend Thought B, so I asked why Thought A wasn’t true.
The defense for Thought B is merely that “they say…”
The defense for Thought A is “A is A”.
“Affirming the consequent”, “Begging the question” (that I asked several times - “why isn’t the opposition to that premise true?”).
Exactly.
If even that much. But I arranged that the contraction of the objects (like in Bell’s scenario) wasn’t relevant.
Another way to phrase it:
Is all of space contracting or only the objects are contracting?
Yes.
Now answer that question so that you can get on with the rest of the puzzle.
Let’s assume that the Xs distance is preserved for two engines.
Now let’s connect a thin wire between the engines when they are stopped and accelerate them again.
Is this now a single object which contracts around the new center of mass (if would be the midpoint between the two engines)? One little wire would change the entire geometry of what is seen to happen? That seems absurd. How can a few connected atoms alter everything?
What if the wire contracts separately? Then it would break although the distance between engines does not change. Seems impossible.
My conclusion, based on this thought experiment, is that all of space contracts. Therefore, the Xs distance is automatically seen to shrink (by the stationmaster) as soon as the engines accelerate.
The wire might break. It is also an “object”. Bell proposed that it would.
But would it… really?
Merely a supposition so far - “seems impossible”, but is it really impossible?
The saying is “seek and ye shall find”.
Stop wanting for a solution or any particular truth (emotionalism) other than what absolutely must be true.
… and you will find what absolutely must be true.
You claimed to have done this, yet you seem unable to actually provide a mathematical description of your own arrangement.
I could keep repeating that same “mathematical description”, but you would just keep ignoring it.
You seem to be living in some ignorant world where nobody has ever tested relativity.
In our world, certain cosmic rays reach the surface of the Earth because of length contraction.
Why don’t you try here just once. You have yet to actually assign coordinates to anything in your recent scenario.