The Einsteinian position is that the flash from B (moving wrt to A, C & D, all three mutually stationary) is NOT received at the same time at C & D due to TD, LC or whatever blather they can invent based upon those two false inferences.
Fascinating. No matter how hard I try, I am not able to wrap my mind into this allegedly Einsteinian pretzel. To wit...
Two neutrinos emitted in opposite directions are travelling at 2c relative to one another (just like photons from a light bulb)!
In the scenario described above, if the "light bulb" is the emitter at B, and two photons are emitted simultaneously: clearly the photon heading to the left towards C is traveling at the speed of light with respect to B. (Or of course, the same scenario would apply if B is a neutrino source.)
Conversely, viewed from the photon, the light bulb is headed to its right, also at the speed of light. But in the frame of reference in which the photon is stationary, all lengths in the light bulb frame of reference ("B") are compressed to zero in the limit, and time is dilated to a complete standstill. So, the photon emitted towards the right towards D must appear from the other photon's viewpoint as if it is moving at exactly the same speed as the light bulb from which it was emitted.
And although that photon is moving away from the light bulb at the speed of light (from the point of view of the bulb itself), an observer at the leftward photon must see both the light bulb and the other photon moving away at exactly the speed of light, neither faster nor slower, and thus the photon will never be seen to leave the light bulb at all.
So far so good.
If we switch things up and view the situation from the rightward-heading photon, both the light bulb and the leftward photon should be seen headed towards C at the speed of light. Surely no Einsteinian would disagree?
So by symmetry, it seems to me that the photon traveling to the left, as viewed from the photon travelling to the right, should reach observer C at the exact same time as the photon traveling to the right reaches D, as viewed from the one headed left.
And for that matter, I don't see how any Einsteinian could deny that the light bulb itself should smash into observers C and D at the exact same time, and simultaneously with the two respective photons. And that should be the case, regardless of the velocity of B with respect to A, C and D. But I digress.
For documentary reference, do you happen to know of any genuine professionally certified Einsteinian who has addressed this question in print?
You have got my arms flailing like a crazed robot, to be sure.
Some gamma ray bursters, repeating ones, not soft bursters, are actually light from cosmoses, far beyond our cosmos.
By "Gamma Ray Bursters" you mean objects visible in the night sky to telescopes sensitive to gamma rays? This is getting more interesting by the minute. It does seem that Badleyans live in a more exciting universe than boring old Einsteinians.
As Basil Fawlty might say: "Well read about them then before one of us dies."
I didn't want to admit that I was reading the Wikipedia article, and Johnson & Tegen "an overview of the neutrino"
linked from there, and none of it convinced me that these things really exist. Not that I'm saying they don't, but I'm keeping my dunce hat on.