"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ...
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.

[snip]

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.

I think the problem has its root in his notion of time.
He insists that time is something metaphysical and nothing
you or I tell him, will make him change his mind:
"No, time is NOT what we read on clocks.
Time is something metaphysical.
The NIST definition of the second is crap."
Something along those lines.
Just another Blind Bulldozer.

Dirk Vdm