Simple question about SR paradox

...@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote in
:

On Sun, 29 May 2011 08:35:02 +0100, "Sky.Watcher"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 29 May 2011 02:41:39 +0100, "Sky.Watcher"


Silly old pommie engineer type question...

Probably the best indicator of the speed of gravity is the
anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury...



SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?
http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg

You repeat this often. Do you have any evidence of SR claiming
rubber bands
contract?

Freeze it if you like...
SR claims all moving matter contracts...and you should know it.

Actually I don't know it. I'd be interested if you could show me
where SR claims all moving matter contracts, but I suspect you don't
know it either.
-- Sky.Watcher

You're obviously new here. I wont bother to explain..

All right, I won't bother to read your ridiculous nonsense. You've
obviously no idea what you are talking about.

Goodbye.
-- Sky.Watcher

What's your real motive? You haven't contributed anything scientific.
You aapparently don't know anything about SR...so I can only assume
you are just part of the Einstein conspiracy, here to stifle any
criticism of his stupid theory.

Must be lonely in the bubble world you set up in your own little head.



SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?
http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg

Henry Wilson DSc
Self-delusion is the Scourge of the SRian..

On Sun, 29 May 2011 11:47:38 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Sun, 29 May 2011 08:35:02 +0100, "Sky.Watcher"
| wrote:

| claims all moving matter contracts, but I suspect you don't know it
| either.
| -- Sky.Watcher
|
| You're obviously new here. I wont bother to explain..
|
| All right, I won't bother to read your ridiculous nonsense. You've
obviously
| no idea what you are talking about.
|
| Goodbye.
| -- Sky.Watcher
|
| What's your real motive? You haven't contributed anything scientific. You
| aapparently don't know anything about SR...so I can only assume you are
just
| part of the Einstein conspiracy, here to stifle any criticism of his
stupid
| theory.
|
|
Looks to me like he was asking you a question you couldn't answer.
You've lost that one, Wilson, he isn't bothering with you anymore.
I won't bother to explain.

He's obviously turned up here one day, read some of your crap and then
accused me of being wrong.

I showed you where Einstein clearly stated that moving matter contracts by
1/gamma in his 1905 paper.

I also explained to you that Einstein's theory is nothing more than a
corruption of LET whereby every individual observer is at rest in his own
personal aether. Hence the maths of LET and SR are identical.

SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?
http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg

Henry Wilson DSc
Self-delusion is the Scourge of the SRian..

On Sun, 29 May 2011 06:43:56 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 5/28/11 11:42 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?

"The 'Special Theory of Relativity' was constructed by Einstein
to resolve the mystery of the speed of light. Einstein's solution
was that the concept of simultaneity depended on the frame of
reference. And the rule that relates the observations from
different frames was given by the Lorentz transformation.

"The predictions of Special Relativity such as time dilation and
Lorentz contraction are as infamous as they are famous. The reason
for the notoriety is due to the apparent paradoxical nature of the
prediction: say we have two frames, A and B, moving relative to each
other. According to Special Relativity, the observer in frame A will
observe the clock in frame B to run slower than the clock in frame A,
and the ruler in frame B to be shorter than the ruler in frame A.
The observer in frame B will observe the exact opposite. Now how can
both points of view be true at the some time?

"Of course, the two points of view are NOT true at the same time.
They are both true because they are NOT at the same time. Time
dilation and Lorentz contraction were both consequences of the fact
that different observers do not agree on what it is meant to be at
the same time. Let us not forget this since otherwise we can be
misled to all sorts of paradoxes which have nothing to do with the
predictions of relativity".
- Tatsu Takeuchi

Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
and reference frames

Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

This article reports on an investigation of student understanding
of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research
tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student
reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The
results indicate that after standard instruction students at all
academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of
simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference
frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct
a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity
and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.

See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109

VII. CONCLUSION

"This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the
simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
confront the startling ideas of special relativity".

what a load of crap!

My paradox uses ONE FRAME ONLY.

SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?
http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg

Henry Wilson DSc
Self-delusion is the Scourge of the SRian..

On 5/29/11 5:13 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
I showed you where Einstein clearly stated that moving matter contracts by
1/gamma in his 1905 paper.

I also explained to you that Einstein's theory is nothing more than a
corruption of LET whereby every individual observer is at rest in his own
personal aether. Hence the maths of LET and SR are identical.

SR contradicts itself.


"The 'Special Theory of Relativity' was constructed by Einstein
to resolve the mystery of the speed of light. Einstein's solution
was that the concept of simultaneity depended on the frame of
reference. And the rule that relates the observations from
different frames was given by the Lorentz transformation.

"The predictions of Special Relativity such as time dilation and
Lorentz contraction are as infamous as they are famous. The reason
for the notoriety is due to the apparent paradoxical nature of the
prediction: say we have two frames, A and B, moving relative to each
other. According to Special Relativity, the observer in frame A will
observe the clock in frame B to run slower than the clock in frame A,
and the ruler in frame B to be shorter than the ruler in frame A.
The observer in frame B will observe the exact opposite. Now how can
both points of view be true at the some time?

"Of course, the two points of view are NOT true at the same time.
They are both true because they are NOT at the same time. Time
dilation and Lorentz contraction were both consequences of the fact
that different observers do not agree on what it is meant to be at
the same time. Let us not forget this since otherwise we can be
misled to all sorts of paradoxes which have nothing to do with the
predictions of relativity".
- Tatsu Takeuchi

Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
and reference frames

Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

This article reports on an investigation of student understanding
of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research
tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student
reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The
results indicate that after standard instruction students at all
academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of
simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference
frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct
a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity
and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.

See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109

VII. CONCLUSION

"This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the
simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
confront the startling ideas of special relativity".

On 5/29/11 5:15 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 06:43:56 -0500, Sam wrote:

On 5/28/11 11:42 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?

"The 'Special Theory of Relativity' was constructed by Einstein
to resolve the mystery of the speed of light. Einstein's solution
was that the concept of simultaneity depended on the frame of
reference. And the rule that relates the observations from
different frames was given by the Lorentz transformation.

"The predictions of Special Relativity such as time dilation and
Lorentz contraction are as infamous as they are famous. The reason
for the notoriety is due to the apparent paradoxical nature of the
prediction: say we have two frames, A and B, moving relative to each
other. According to Special Relativity, the observer in frame A will
observe the clock in frame B to run slower than the clock in frame A,
and the ruler in frame B to be shorter than the ruler in frame A.
The observer in frame B will observe the exact opposite. Now how can
both points of view be true at the some time?

"Of course, the two points of view are NOT true at the same time.
They are both true because they are NOT at the same time. Time
dilation and Lorentz contraction were both consequences of the fact
that different observers do not agree on what it is meant to be at
the same time. Let us not forget this since otherwise we can be
misled to all sorts of paradoxes which have nothing to do with the
predictions of relativity".
- Tatsu Takeuchi

Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
and reference frames

Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

This article reports on an investigation of student understanding
of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research
tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student
reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The
results indicate that after standard instruction students at all
academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of
simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference
frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct
a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity
and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.

See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109

VII. CONCLUSION

"This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the
simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
confront the startling ideas of special relativity".

what a load of crap!

My paradox uses ONE FRAME ONLY.

One frame would definitely simplify things for you, Ralph!

On Sun, 29 May 2011 17:24:10 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 5/29/11 5:13 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
I showed you where Einstein clearly stated that moving matter contracts by
1/gamma in his 1905 paper.

I also explained to you that Einstein's theory is nothing more than a
corruption of LET whereby every individual observer is at rest in his own
personal aether. Hence the maths of LET and SR are identical.

SR contradicts itself.


"The 'Special Theory of Relativity' was constructed by Einstein
to resolve the mystery of the speed of light. Einstein's solution
was that the concept of simultaneity depended on the frame of
reference. And the rule that relates the observations from
different frames was given by the Lorentz transformation.

"The predictions of Special Relativity such as time dilation and
Lorentz contraction are as infamous as they are famous. The reason
for the notoriety is due to the apparent paradoxical nature of the
prediction: say we have two frames, A and B, moving relative to each
other. According to Special Relativity, the observer in frame A will
observe the clock in frame B to run slower than the clock in frame A,
and the ruler in frame B to be shorter than the ruler in frame A.
The observer in frame B will observe the exact opposite. Now how can
both points of view be true at the some time?

"Of course, the two points of view are NOT true at the same time.
They are both true because they are NOT at the same time. Time
dilation and Lorentz contraction were both consequences of the fact
that different observers do not agree on what it is meant to be at
the same time. Let us not forget this since otherwise we can be
misled to all sorts of paradoxes which have nothing to do with the
predictions of relativity".
- Tatsu Takeuchi

Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
and reference frames

Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

This article reports on an investigation of student understanding
of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research
tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student
reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The
results indicate that after standard instruction students at all
academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of
simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference
frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct
a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity
and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.

See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109

VII. CONCLUSION

"This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the
simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
confront the startling ideas of special relativity".

My paradox uses only one frame, dopey.

SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?
http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg

Henry Wilson DSc
Self-delusion is the Scourge of the SRian..

On Sun, 29 May 2011 17:26:04 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 5/29/11 5:15 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 06:43:56 -0500, Sam wrote:

On 5/28/11 11:42 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?

"The 'Special Theory of Relativity' was constructed by Einstein
to resolve the mystery of the speed of light. Einstein's solution
was that the concept of simultaneity depended on the frame of
reference. And the rule that relates the observations from
different frames was given by the Lorentz transformation.

"The predictions of Special Relativity such as time dilation and
Lorentz contraction are as infamous as they are famous. The reason
for the notoriety is due to the apparent paradoxical nature of the
prediction: say we have two frames, A and B, moving relative to each
other. According to Special Relativity, the observer in frame A will
observe the clock in frame B to run slower than the clock in frame A,
and the ruler in frame B to be shorter than the ruler in frame A.
The observer in frame B will observe the exact opposite. Now how can
both points of view be true at the some time?

"Of course, the two points of view are NOT true at the same time.
They are both true because they are NOT at the same time. Time
dilation and Lorentz contraction were both consequences of the fact
that different observers do not agree on what it is meant to be at
the same time. Let us not forget this since otherwise we can be
misled to all sorts of paradoxes which have nothing to do with the
predictions of relativity".
- Tatsu Takeuchi

Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
and reference frames

Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

This article reports on an investigation of student understanding
of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research
tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student
reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The
results indicate that after standard instruction students at all
academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of
simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference
frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct
a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity
and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.

See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109

VII. CONCLUSION

"This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the
simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
confront the startling ideas of special relativity".

what a load of crap!

My paradox uses ONE FRAME ONLY.

One frame would definitely simplify things for you, Henry!

So you accept you are a moron, eh wormey?

SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?
http://www.scisite.info/wilson's_paradox.jpg

Henry Wilson DSc
Self-delusion is the Scourge of the SRian..

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 29 May 2011 11:47:38 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Sun, 29 May 2011 08:35:02 +0100, "Sky.Watcher"
| | wrote:
|
| | claims all moving matter contracts, but I suspect you don't know it
| | either.
| | -- Sky.Watcher
| |
| | You're obviously new here. I wont bother to explain..
| |
| | All right, I won't bother to read your ridiculous nonsense. You've
| obviously
| | no idea what you are talking about.
| |
| | Goodbye.
| | -- Sky.Watcher
| |
| | What's your real motive? You haven't contributed anything scientific.
You
| | aapparently don't know anything about SR...so I can only assume you are
| just
| | part of the Einstein conspiracy, here to stifle any criticism of his
| stupid
| | theory.
| |
| |
| Looks to me like he was asking you a question you couldn't answer.
| You've lost that one, Wilson, he isn't bothering with you anymore.
| I won't bother to explain.
|
| He's obviously turned up here one day, read some of your crap and then
| accused me of being wrong.
|
| I showed you where Einstein clearly stated that moving matter contracts by
| 1/gamma in his 1905 paper.

You haven't given me one single citation for gamma, and 2 is shorter than 1.
I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid that is.
|
| I also explained to you that Einstein's theory is nothing more than a
| corruption of LET whereby every individual observer is at rest in his own
| personal aether. Hence the maths of LET and SR are identical.

According to the dyscalculiac Alf "Daisy" Baggage, 1/2 is identical to 2/1.
I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid that is.

On 5/29/11 5:37 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 17:24:10 -0500, Sam wrote:

On 5/29/11 5:13 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
I showed you where Einstein clearly stated that moving matter contracts by
1/gamma in his 1905 paper.

I also explained to you that Einstein's theory is nothing more than a
corruption of LET whereby every individual observer is at rest in his own
personal aether. Hence the maths of LET and SR are identical.

SR contradicts itself.


"The 'Special Theory of Relativity' was constructed by Einstein
to resolve the mystery of the speed of light. Einstein's solution
was that the concept of simultaneity depended on the frame of
reference. And the rule that relates the observations from
different frames was given by the Lorentz transformation.

"The predictions of Special Relativity such as time dilation and
Lorentz contraction are as infamous as they are famous. The reason
for the notoriety is due to the apparent paradoxical nature of the
prediction: say we have two frames, A and B, moving relative to each
other. According to Special Relativity, the observer in frame A will
observe the clock in frame B to run slower than the clock in frame A,
and the ruler in frame B to be shorter than the ruler in frame A.
The observer in frame B will observe the exact opposite. Now how can
both points of view be true at the some time?

"Of course, the two points of view are NOT true at the same time.
They are both true because they are NOT at the same time. Time
dilation and Lorentz contraction were both consequences of the fact
that different observers do not agree on what it is meant to be at
the same time. Let us not forget this since otherwise we can be
misled to all sorts of paradoxes which have nothing to do with the
predictions of relativity".
- Tatsu Takeuchi

Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
and reference frames

Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

This article reports on an investigation of student understanding
of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research
tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student
reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The
results indicate that after standard instruction students at all
academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of
simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference
frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct
a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity
and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.

See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109

VII. CONCLUSION

"This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the
simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
confront the startling ideas of special relativity".

My paradox uses only one frame, dopey.

So you keep saying...

It is really unfortunate for you to take such a hardened stance on
a theory that has such copious experimental verification, Ralph.

What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

On 5/29/11 5:38 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 17:26:04 -0500, Sam wrote:

On 5/29/11 5:15 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 06:43:56 -0500, Sam wrote:

On 5/28/11 11:42 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
SR contradicts itself. Why try to defend any of it?

"The 'Special Theory of Relativity' was constructed by Einstein
to resolve the mystery of the speed of light. Einstein's solution
was that the concept of simultaneity depended on the frame of
reference. And the rule that relates the observations from
different frames was given by the Lorentz transformation.

"The predictions of Special Relativity such as time dilation and
Lorentz contraction are as infamous as they are famous. The reason
for the notoriety is due to the apparent paradoxical nature of the
prediction: say we have two frames, A and B, moving relative to each
other. According to Special Relativity, the observer in frame A will
observe the clock in frame B to run slower than the clock in frame A,
and the ruler in frame B to be shorter than the ruler in frame A.
The observer in frame B will observe the exact opposite. Now how can
both points of view be true at the some time?

"Of course, the two points of view are NOT true at the same time.
They are both true because they are NOT at the same time. Time
dilation and Lorentz contraction were both consequences of the fact
that different observers do not agree on what it is meant to be at
the same time. Let us not forget this since otherwise we can be
misled to all sorts of paradoxes which have nothing to do with the
predictions of relativity".
- Tatsu Takeuchi

Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity
and reference frames

Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

This article reports on an investigation of student understanding
of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research
tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student
reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The
results indicate that after standard instruction students at all
academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of
simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference
frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct
a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity
and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.

See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109

VII. CONCLUSION

"This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
students have with the definition of the time of an event and the
role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of
physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are
unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining
whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret
the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the
simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of
the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity
of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different
observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity
of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to
confront the startling ideas of special relativity".

what a load of crap!

My paradox uses ONE FRAME ONLY.

One frame would definitely simplify things for you, Henry!

So you accept you are a moron, eh wormey?

It is really unfortunate for you to take such a hardened stance on
a theory that has such copious experimental verification, Ralph.

What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html