And how did that work again? Oh yes, it went something like:Np assumtions regarding synchronization at all. I made it abundantly clear that I was not synchronizing clocks between frames. I was synchronizing clocks within one frame, without reference tio the other frame. Do you have this clearly fixed in your mind?
If the stationary frame observers can assure themselves that their clocks are all calibrated to give the same time, then the same law of physics applied in the inertial moving frame also provides assurance that the clocks in that moving frame all tell the same time.
A and A' are both set to 0 when they meet
M and M' are both set to 0 when they meet
B and B' are both set to 0 when they meet
In the stationary frame, since A, M, and B are all set to zero simultaneously, they must tell the same time afterwards. Also, in the stationary frame, A', M', and B' are set to zero simultaneously, so they must tell the same time afterwards.
However, you've given no justification for your assertion that they all meet simultaneously in the moving frame. In fact, it is a fairly trivial fact of Minowski geometry (the geometry used in SR) that two events are simultaneous in all frames if and only if they are at the same place at the same time; i.e. if they're the same event.
Where "truth" is defined as whatever you believe?The conclusion I want is the truth.
We've done a few. You don't listen. They must not satisfy your definition of "truth".The calculations are your job.
You're missing a crucially important part of your "job". If your goal is to prove Special Relativity is logically inconsistent, you must make this demonstration within the confines of Special Relativity. If you merely wish to show that Special Relativity doesn't reflect reality, then you must make this demonstration with an actual experiment, not a thought experiment.My job, only, is to demonstarte that the photons emitted at A and B simultaneously were also emitted simultaneously in the moving frame.
I think I agree with the spirit of this statement. The pulses, though, weren't sent from a "moving frame"; they were sent from (moving) light sources.You recognize don't you, that my method was able to determine if the pulses were sent simultaneously from a moving frame to a stationary observer?
I do not recognize this, because it is not true. I did the calculations comparing the two frames and showed precisely the opposite; they were simultaneous in one frame and not on the other. You, however, have not done the calculations for both frames under the conditions I set up.And that under the conditions you set up, the photons were emitted simultaneously in the moving and and stationary frames and this is what I calculated.
And you also assume a few more which are not made by SR.I assume all the postulates that are used in SR. The constancy of the laws of physics and the constancy of the measured speed of light.
Why would I kick up dust? Or shovel out dirt? You're the one who wanted to bring up colorful analogies, I was just supplying one that is more apt.Why would you hand me rope? I thought, LOL, we were in a science discussion, seeking he truth.
He did do more than just invent Special & General Relativity, ya know.How many times did Einstein go into a phsyics lab and tweak knobs and record ammeters and the such?
Nope, I'm not a mathematician. And I'm certainly not the one going around implying that I have done this experiment.are you a bigtime experimentalist?
Saying it does not make it so.I synchronized,calibrated is a better word, the clocks again in the moving frame using the same laws of physics and the constancy of the speed of light used in the stationary frame
You can be breathless, awestruck, and humbled if you like. I merely wanted to make it crystal clear that this is where my primary objection to your analysis lies; it is more or less pointless to speak about anything else unless it is going to relate directly to this objection.This is your current coda? I am supposed to be breathless, awestruck and humbled aren't I? taking these two sentences away? OK, if you say so. You're the mentor.