You two couldn’t leave it. You had to rag on me some more.
But yeah, now I’m done. You got no defense.
Frankly, you have been my defense (much like Eugene).
Thank you.
Wow. I knew phyllo missed something, but…
You have no idea how many times I have seen this EXACT same thing happen to people I’ve known, both when I was in academia and after I left it.
It is the literal unraveling of thinking/reasoning and initiative/motive. A manner of dissolving of consciousness. And very sad when you watch this progressively happening to people you knew/respected and considered friends.
Thus, we now have a very precise definition of the real problem: thinking without understanding. Or rather, without even “wishing” to understand, which is merely a lack of sufficient “energy” in the self to overcome the other disincentives preventing the maintenance of a motivation to understanding, and instead incentivizing blind faith.
When one is taught and accepts how to think without understanding, how to think without rational-critical analysis and self-motive… without nullius in verba… one has effectively killed their own mind, or perhaps “soul”. Having been through different levels of secondary and post-secondary education myself, I can speak with confidence that this kind of teaching is the larger part of what is going on in educational institutions, at least in the USA.
Passing through these institutions, they become something less than human.
aka. “Drone” formed by inspiring the urge to emotionally presume and thus lose the ability to have good judgment, “to sin”/“miss the mark” (making the person easier to persuade = “weak-minded” - use for someone else’s agenda).
James - hoping you can tell me if this is correct (by RM) or not.
Honestly that was hard for me to comment on, an interpretation issue.
“The fabric of spacetime” as it relates to what any entity is interpreting as its reality seems strictly a mental issue. I keep an objective reality separate from subjective maps of reality. I’m not sure whether you do that or not. Obviously an objective reality doesn’t care what anyone is thinking or interpreting. Inside a mind or a society, “the fabric of society” or “the fabric of spacemind” would certainly be “disturbed” with an affectance ripple throughout. But I can’t tell if that is what you were talking about.
I understand what you mean, that’s a trap Ive come to recognize and avoid since I have VO.
But still, I often use language evoking both the subjective and what you call the objective.
This is indeed a language issue, as often I can understand parts of an ontology based on other concepts but do not have a detailed model of the workings of that particular ontology.
What I was specificaly interested in here is the ripple effect, which is my guess as to how light would adapt to either reference frame. I would guess that it is “sucked in” each frame to manifest at c there, by a slight force (affectance ripple) that is present at the edge of the moving object that constitutes the frame.
If there is no mass in motion at all, then the whole business of different speeds of light isn’t an issue, c is just c as in absolute vacuum.
Perhaps the most definitive definition of irony there is James. Ironically. 
c is a constant in a vacuum, everything natural falls out of this constant, except perhaps commonly held beliefs, it seems counter intuitive but it isn’t, what is is the way you think. It’s perhaps not a surprise then that there are millions of people on the internet claiming they have disproved reality with their own reality, which ironically no one can fathom. 
“like reality man, woaaahh it’s like really real?”
Some guy.
Check out lorentz transforms, lorentz symmetry, or lorentz invariance if you want to know what is what, not some randomers opinion. Which I realise is ironic, but justifiably so.
“seriously don’t make me come down there a fucking gain!”
Jesus fucking Christ.
“Everyone is Jesus fucking Christ on the internet.”
Jesus fucking Christ, circa some when.
If the precision of the measuring got extremely good and that type of scenario with a station and a train could be done on Earth, the station clock would be the one that stopped because the affectance field is far greater in the frame of the Earth’s surface than within the train.
But if merely a clock was floating out in space and a big light speed train whizzed by, the train clock would stop and not the “station”/floating clock because the train would have the higher ambient affectance (assuming the light was very close to the train at all times).
But if the measuring and flashing got extremely accurate, neither clock would stop regardless, simply because the ambient field would never be exact enough.
It is the ambient field that the light is traveling in that is determining the outcome.
I realize that, but my ripple effect solution was based on the assumption that the two sets of ambient (concrete frames) are equal in mass.
Yeah, I realized a while later that I could have just used two trains passing each other and simplified the whole issue. And yeah, the light would get “sucked into” each frame independently.
Yes it is which is apposite only in that it is diametrically opposed to everything you post on this forum which by contingency/contiguity isn’t that, being as it’s philosophy or perhaps the philosophy of science.
And so you have a hypothesis, now it is time to test it, which is called experiment, and when you get the results (positive or negative) you publish them and then you subject them to review by peers so that they can repeat your experiment and perhaps support your evidence or refute by counter evidence, and then people don’t think you’re some crank who has recently escaped from the loony bin, at least in theory that’s how it works. 
Cool.
How does this sucking work? I imagined a kind of inward rippling that would be caused by the energetic difference or friction between the frames.
Well, I haven’t tried it, but I imagine it is merely like a couples of streams passing in opposite directions. There would be some swirling between them affecting things a bit. Or like an open window on the train as a feather happened by.
That’s why it’s called general relativity as opposed to special relativity, which is the generalised form of the specific example of light which has no mass, hence having none by mathematical equation it propogates under the lorentz transforms at c or the speed of light, aka c, so in essence general relativity says it is energy but it has no inertia or rest mass or relativistic mass, hence the term light which means doesn’t weigh much, incidentally and illumination, and can mean weightless or massless, in context it’s quite obvious really. Light is energy and energy is light, mass is equivalent to energy and energy is equivalent to light, ergo e=mc^2.
In the beginning there was energy and that energy became mass over time hence energy is equivalent to mass/time, hence particles energy or propensity to propagate or move are expressed as mass/c^2, ultimately the attenuation of energy will lead to heat death and the end of the universe.
fortunately some egg head put that in some equations and proved the why of gravity, we had already proved the how, Einstein with his parabolic geometry showed us why gravity and why it only attracts.
There is no God but wiki and google is his prophet. 
If you think about it space-time falls out naturally from the conclusion that energy is mass and that motion moves through space time at and according to the c which conveniently is exactly the speed of energy and exactly the speed of light which conveniently is called c or constant c or the speed of light, time is time and mass is mass and energy is energy. it should then not come as a shock that time and space have no necessary simultaneity, in fact the opposite, unless you believe in luminiferous aether aka being a moron.
wiki.
It sucks hence it doesn’t work, see above.
If you mean sucks in the sense of warping space time like a sheet of rubber with a cannon ball on it then yes it sucks but does not blow. Which explains why gravitation is never negative as well, because negative energy is as nonsensical as negative time. All experiment agrees with this, it is not some giant conspiracy to wind up God botherers, believe it or not.
The point is the obverse. Whether there is necessarily no simultaneity - which makes no sense at all for a mere mathematical method to prescribe.