says...

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.

That's because you are an idiot.

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.

On the contrary, many people have showed why the two statements
are not contradictory. "Simultaneous" is relative to an observer,
in the same way that "left/right" or "above/below" are relative
to an observer.

Apparently the subscriber is thinking of several posts that discussed
the non-contradiction of different uses of terms such as "left," and
likened the two appearances of the term "simultaneous" in Q to these.
Yet of course such defenses fail, since, as I have shown at some
length, obviously Q is not like these.

On the contrary, it is exactly like those.

As I have explained hitherto, this interpretation of the doctrine
of the "relativity of simultaneity" would trivialize it.

It *is* trivial. Things simultaneous in one coordinate system
are not simultaneous in another coordinate system.

The theory does not make the trivial claim that the term "now"
differs in sense in different applications, like the term "left"
or other relative terms, or, for that matter, the term "cat."

Yes, it does. The term "now" has a different interpretation for
different observers in the same way that "left" and "right" do.

Rather, the theory claims (by implication) that the two car
crashes of Q may be both simultaneous and not simultaneous
in precisely the *non-trivial* sense

No, it does not.

since, unlike the different uses of term "left" or "cat," the
claims of both parties of Q *have the same referent.*

No, they do not. "now" is a set of spacetime points.
It is a *different* set for different observers. The
referent of "now" is *different* for different observers.

Moreover, the posts in question did not *show* that the two uses of
the term "simultaneous" in Q differed in sense (equivocation) or
reference; these posts merely listed some relative terms, and claimed
without further argument that the apparent contradiction of Q was
justified by its likeness to one of these relative terms. We are not
surprised that no argument was offered, since again, as I explained
above, such an interpretation of SR would trivialize it.

It is trivial. Under the coordinate transformation

x' = gamma (x - vt)
t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2)

two events that are simultaneous in coordinate system
(x,t) are *not* simultaneous in the coordinate system
(x',t').

You are a deeply stupid person.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY