I think I’m beginning to understand. Your stated definition of “uniform reference frame” wasn’t the same as what I thought. You stated it’s the same environment. In regards to Special Theory, it’s more like the same relative velocity instead of some sort of surroundings.
Everything else you’ve posted in response is either “General Theory applies, not Special Theory” or giving a hypothetical, unobserved example (i.e. thought-experiment and/or mathematical construct).
Thanks.
By the way, why is it that you no longer teach physics and are now in the concrete world of computers?
Bell's Theorem Experiments are real experiments, not thought experiments, but the scissors paradox is a pure hypothetical. However, both give some insight into how the supposed absolute "nothing can exceed the speed of light" can break down. The apex of the scissors is a physical point, and it can exceed the speed of light.
Why do these examples matter? Well, for the reason you hint at -- when you say "unobserved," which is a good insight -- but not quite true.
The real physical point of "nothing can exceed the speed of light" is this: If there is a Lorentz reference frame in which an object/event propagates information faster than the speed of light, then there is a reference frame in which the event appears to happen before its cause. Causality violations do not appear to happen in our universe.
So, the "loopholes" can be broadly categorized: Events can be connected by apparent FTL propagation provided that no information can be conveyed. That is what has tripped up the author of this article and that is why Bell's Theorem, which has tripped up so many great physicists and nearly all laymen is important in this context. It appears that quantum state flipping occurs "instantly" no matter how far apart the components of an entangled system might be. But there is nothing we can do with the fact, because no information is conveyed.
Same thing actually with the apparent FTL velocity of distant objects in space in a different way. Those objects "apparently" moving FTL because of the expansion of spacetime 1) do not appear to be FTL in their local Lorentz frames and 2) are beyond our event horizon, so they can never be used to violate causality. They are not part of our observable universe.
The answer to your other question is, I loved teaching but was told that nobody in any university would hire me to teach, that I wouldn't be rewarded for teaching, even teaching well, and my research was all computer calculations and simulations. So I decided if I was going to be paid to be a computer jockey I could make a lot more money just being a computer jockey. I miss teaching, but that's about all of the academic world I miss. No regrets.