Oh well, then just ignore that post address the other posts. 
Of course: I hope neither phyllo and I thought that you would actually learn anything.
You are clearly someone who either has an inflated ego or is so emotionally damaged that you take to lying about physics on the internet in order to boost your confidence.
James refuses to accept that space and time are intimately intertwined… In spite of experiments which show that to be true.
So he keeps proposing scenarios which he thinks are logical but which are impossible.
The universe does not run on definitional logic.
1 Like
Phyllo keeps insisting on absolute statements that he can’t prove because those are what he was told.
…and again.
…and again.
My universe doesn’t run on what other people promote as truth.
Obviously your does and always will.
You don’t accept time dilation or length contraction?
What do you say about the experiments?
What I accept has never been the issue.
The issue is one of you being able to think logically.
My opinion concerning any of it is irrelevant.
As far as what I personally accept;
A) I know that clocks slow down when moving faster (or in a high gravity field).
B) I know that length contraction is merely an epistemological issue (objects will get smaller).
C) I know that Relativity is a “broken ontology” (-does not allow “A is A”)
D) I know that the “relativity of simultaneity” is a circular argument.
E) I know of several errors in Einstein’s 1905 paper.
In short, Relativity is itself merely relative.
But, although it might not be totally impossible to convince a cat that the Internet is real, it would be if having to use the Internet as the only means to communicate the argument.
Your opinion is what this thread is built on. You have no calculations or experiments to support your position. In fact, we are to believe your logic in spite of observations. Both the stationmaster and driver are to ignore what they see and just accept what you say. That doesn’t sound like science, it sounds like you are starting a cult.
You know this but you apply it only when it suits you. If you applied contraction to both the station and the train, then your idea of simultaneity would evaporate. Logic says that there are consequences to time dilation and length contraction.
You are most definitely guilty of your accusation (big surprise).
It is YOU who are saying that they should ignore what they see and THINK in order to accept YOUR cultist formula.
YOU must deny logic itself in order to substantiate your relativity-cult formula. And in so doing, you invalidate every argument you make because once you deny logic, nothing you say can make any logical sense. Your very statements require logic merely to convey their thought.
YOU and PB, and the entire group are the CULTISTS, no different than dominate Christianity, or any other religion.
What I propose and request of you is merely logical thought. You refuse to provide it because your authorities have told you what to think, even when it doesn’t add up. You have to bail out at a certain point, because your mind won’t let you refuse authority.
When you are captured, as you and PB are, by a cult, you can no longer think logically. That is what a cult is all about, controlling your thoughts and preventing you from being able to think logically, because that would undermine their authority over your mind.
You are living as one of those same participants throughout history whom you scorn for being stupid or silly for believing in what they believe. They thought just like you. If you were back in those times, you would be professing how Christianity has all the answers or Moses, or Buddha, or whoever.
Your mind is in a box of misperceptions brought about by your fear.
Phyllo, Logic is about agreeing with oneself, “anti-dissonance”. This puzzle has nothing to do with agreeing with me nor with “them” (to whom you can never speak or argue with and will never meet). It has to do with your capacity to agree with yourself.
Note that I have not told you my solution to this puzzle at all, so you can’t say that I am trying to get you to “see it my way” and control your mind. I propose a scenario in which you agree up to a point where you see that you would have to disagree with “them”. At that point, you, and especially PB, repel away and deny your own prior agreements (not so much FC). You deny the consistency for your own thoughts (“THEY can’t be wrong… PLEASE NO!!!”). It is an issue of being honest with oneself in the face of seeing that “the King has no clothes”.
Your attacks on me are exactly what cults do in order to maintain their appearance of validity.
You already agree too much with yourself. You need to step outside of your mind and look around.
We have tried calculations, thought experiments, reasoning from various angles… you remain unconvinced. 
The only thing that counts in that list is “reasoning” and in that, you stop short… as soon as you realize that the grand consortium would be proven wrong if you continued. It’s not really any different than Physics Forum, banned for disagreeing, or in my case merely for mentioning that an alternative theory existed.
And in that reasoning that you began to go through (much like PB finally attempted), you agree with certain thoughts as true. All I do is say, “well, if though thoughts are true, mustn’t this thought be true?”. And that is the point where you jump back and start quoting scriptures.
If you don’t believe me and want to know the truth of yourself, merely begin your reasoning again, not trying to find out why that James must be wrong (that has never been the subject), but rather by trying to step-by-step show what must be right without merely quoting your scriptures. By now, you certainly know that appeal to authority in issues of logic and Science means nothing to me.
Show
Your
Logic
So why don’t you get some actual credit in the real world of academia by revealing these errors?
So far, you don’t show any evidence of having read any of the papers Einstein published in 1905.
The errors of others isn’t the subject.
The subject is logic.
The subject is you lying about special relativity: this is the real analysis of the so-called stopped clock paradox. You present yourself as smarter than Einstein, but you clearly haven’t actually learned what Einstein did. Given the chance to defend yourself, you bail on the challenge. Given versions of your own scenario with actual numbers that show your scenario to have no paradoxical conclusions, you avoid engaging the numbers.
You seem to confuse lying with logic.
Show
Your
Logic
I know it is hard for you to conceive, but ad homs and lying about me are not Logic.
…neither is quoting holy scripture.
See every scenario phyllo and I have given so far.
I have not lied about you: we know from the other thread that you lie; you even admitted it. You also say untrue things about SR all through this thread. Additionally, it is not an ad hominem to point out both that you lie and that you fail to provide mathematics since you failed to provide cogent mathematical analysis on this and other message boards. This is germaine to the subject at hand: the analysis of the stopped clock paradox. It is relevant to the subject because the real analysis is that you are presenting a false account of SR and a series of mistakes of reasoning. Your poor character is also relevant because it shows others why you persist in your mistakes and make no effort to correct them.
That is a best a poor analogy; you are not excused from lying about SR because others point out what SR actually says and it is not akin to religious conviction to demand of a logical analysis of some theory that the theory is presented correctly.
You started the original thread on August 27, 2010. So it’s been more than 3 years and there is no solution. Makes a fella wonder. 
Makes me wonder more than you.
Imagine if on one of your puzzles, you found after 3 years no one had said anything other than ad homs and quotes from their scriptures, none of which answered the question with anything but religious/cultist faith.
Start over and
Show
Your
Logic
It really isn’t that hard (for those few who do not fear seeing beyond what they have been told).
Again, saying, “You don’t understand special relativity,” isn’t like quoting scripture. Saying that you have some special understanding that nobody else in the world has or has ever had, that sounds like religion.
The Lorentz transformations.
…isn’t Your logic, merely a quote from your Holy Babel.
…and actually isn’t even applicable or relevant.