In the real world, outside of your ballistic imagination, your extrapolations of exterior person's motives is worthless (whereas you mistakenly believe it is all about YOU).
Where did I imply 'it is all about [me]'? I'm pointing out that if you actually had something worthwhile you'd not be posting it on a forum, you'd be submitting it to a journal.
I'm not the one making grand claims about turning over a century of science. You are. I just want you to provide some justification/evidence for your claim. I'm sorry to take a request to follow the scientific method as some kind of personal attack but its hardly my fault you can't justify your claims.
Hell will be frozen over solid down past bedrock when somebody like me feels compelled to be motivated by the totally chaotic and senseless rants spewed out by somebody like you.
So you're not going to provide evidence for your claims because I've been rude to you? You're the one who made a claim, simply repeatedly asking you to justify it because you keep failing to do so isn't a fault of mine. If you'd justified your claim initially we'd not have to keep badgering you.
My concerns regarding the terrible logical disconnects contained in Einstein's "Relativity Of Simultaneity" versus Einstein's "Postulate" have already been plainly stated. If you are so ditzy that you are unable to read and comprehend plainly written English then that is an Alphanumertic problem, not a Uno Hoo problem.
Do you think everyone who disagrees with you is 'ditzy'? No one here who knows any physics has agreed with you. You have made a claim (about who sees when the light gets to the person's eyes) which is false and I'm not the only one to point it out.
You haven't actually done any SR calculations, you just jump straight to what you
assume is the outcome and declare that's what SR says. Attacking SR because you think it says something it doesn't is just silly. You also continue with the "One of the postulates is contradictory", which you haven't justified either, just repeatedly stated.
Read my posts, read the book, try to figure it out again
Tell you what, I'll walk you through it. It's basically the same as the problem I've been correcting Jack_ on so its not difficult.
Person A is in Frame 1, which has the train at rest and coordinates (x,t)
Person B is in Frame 2, which has the embankment at rest and coordinates (x',t')
The train has length 2cT and moves at speed v relative to the embankment.
Person A is in the middle of the train. He fires photons in both directions, up and down the train and waits for them to come back.
So who sees what? Start with person A's point of view.
A is at (0,t) for all t. The light spreads out such that its at $$x=\pm ct$$. Note that this is precisely the same swetup as I'm discussing with Jack_ as this is the definition of a 0 dimensional spheres, $$x^{2} = R^{2}$$ with $$R=ct$$. The photon sphere hits the front and back of the train, at $$x = \pm cT$$ simultaneously at t=T and reflects back, with coordinates satisfying $$x^{2} = c^{2}(2T-t)^{2}$$ for $$t>T$$. Person A sees the light return when x=0 so t=2T. Easy and simple.
Now consider what Person B sees.
In Frame 2 B has coordinates(x',t') = (0,t') for all t'. However, Person A is moving in this frame, with speed v. His location is therefore (x',t') = (vt',t') for all t'. Further more the train has been Lorentz contracted. Its ends satisfied $$x^{2} = (cT)^{2}$$ in (x,t) coordinates but a Lorentz boost contracts them by a factor of $$\gamma$$ and moves their position in time, ie $$\gamma^{2}(x'-vt')^{2} = (cT)^{2}$$.
The photon sphere is produced at the initial position of x'=x=t=t'=0. It spreads such that it satisfies $$x'^{2} = (ct')^{2}$$.
Since there's an asymmetry due to the motion we'll consider the two directions in turn, starting with the photons moving towards the back of the train, ie $$x' = -ct'$$. Solving the simultaneous equations we get the time they hit the back of the train as $$t' = \sqrt{\frac{c-v}{c+v}}T \equiv T_{0}$$. Once again I point you at Jack_'s thread because this is an identical result.
These reflect back. At $$t=T_{0}$$ they are at $$x' = -cT_{0}$$ and move with velocity c so their location is $$-cT_{0} + (t'-T_{0})c$$ for $$t' \geq T_{0}$$. When does they catch up with the guy on the train? His coordinates are (x',t') = (vt',t') and so we want $$-cT_{0} + c(t'-T_{0}) = vt'$$ or equivalently $$t' =\frac{2c}{c-v}T_{0} = 2T\gamma$$.
This is the same result as in the first frame but with the time dilation coming into effect.
Now consider the photons which go towards the front of the train. They are at $$(x',t') = (ct',t')$$. The front of the train satisfies $$\gamma(x'-vt') = cT$$ and the front of the photon sphere satisfies $$x' = ct'$$. Putting them together gives $$\sqrt{\frac{c+v}{c-v}}T \equiv T_{1}$$. Note that $$T_{0}(v) = T_{1}(-v)$$ and the $$\sqrt{\frac{c\pm v}{c\mp v}}$$ factor is the usual red/blue shifting, which is essentially what we're doing.
These reflect back and they have location $$x' = cT_{1}$$ at $$t'=T_{1}$$ and so have location $$x' = cT_{1} - (t'-T_{1})c$$ for $$t_{1} \geq T_{1}$$. From B's point of view these reach A when $$cT_{1} - (t'-T_{1})c = vt'$$, so $$t' = \frac{2c}{c+v}T_{1} = 2T\gamma$$.
Lowe and behold, the same time! So the person on the embankment, B, sees the two light pulses return to A at the same moment. He
doesn't think they hit the back and front at the same time but because of a symmetry this isn't a problem.
From the B's point of view the time it takes a photon to go from A to the back is the same as it takes a photon to go from the front to A. Likewise, its the same time for a photon to go from A to the front as it is to go from the back to A. It's symmetric and thus the totals are the same.
A contradiction would arise if in Frame 1 both photons get to A at the same time but in Frame 2 they don't. If 3 things meet at a point in space-time in one frame (ie two photons and A) then they must meet at a point in ALL frames. Which is precisely what we see here.
I find it funny that Uno and Jack_ both claim to have whipped special relativity and to have perfect, undeniable logic yet all you need to do to prove them wrong is know how to write down the equation for a sphere!