wrote in message
...

Lets see if I can distill down all this verbosity

In response to my remark that as yet I have been offered no rebuttal
to my "logical refutation," A poster on this thread replied that "[my]
tortured reasoning was exposed by a number of posters." Is that so? My
apologies, I did not notice. I'd be grateful if this subscriber or any
other would point out to me a post showing that the falsehood of Q
does not follow from principle of non-contradiction. Q is the
following proposition: "Two car crashes, one in Ausralia and another
in America, are correctly claimed by one party to be simultaneous and
by another not simultaneous." I noticed no rebuttal showing that the
terms "simultaneous" and "not simultaneous" in this proposition are
not contradictory.

Ok .. so because the time that distant event happens depends on your frame
of reference, you think that means SR doesn't work.

Let me show you how your 'logic' is wrong by applying the same logic to the
simpler pre-relativity physics

If you have a ball bouncing up and down in a train (with not forward motion
in the train) then from an observer on the ground, the ball DOES move with
forward motion. So you have the ball both not moving forward, and moving
forward, at the same time. Therefore physics is wrong.

Did I miss something out there?