Strange

The formal, mathematical definition of the integers starts from the axioms that there is a zero (or, equivalently, the empty set) and that all numbers have a successor.

Actually, you would get black - it is the difference between additive (light) and subtractive (pigments) colour mixing. By using a spectrometer to measure it, I guess.

What is your evidence for that? And why would it matter?

Then maybe you need to explain what you mean more clearly because I obviously don't understand. Even after reading it again. You appear to be saying that Newton's laws of motion are not invariant with respect to location or speed. So what do you really mean?

Some questions remain unanswered. But many questions are answered (by science). Yes, yes. We know what the word means. (But kudos for not useing "mute" as many people do.) There is no debate between science and creationism - in the same way there is no debate as to whether it is better to use the police or Batman to fight crime. Only one works in the real world. There is of course much debate, discussion, dispute and uncertainty in science. That is how science works. That doesn't mean we don't know anything tough, as you imply. There is masses of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. That is why it is a theory. That is not really anything to do with the theory of evolution. But most of the steps in that process are understood. (I am not going to try and summarise the status of half a dozen branches of science here though!) In general, energy minimization. In other words, there isn't really a "cause".

As you are claiming that relativity is wrong, it is up to you show that is not. Perhaps a new thread in Speculations? (But as your equations don't even mention the origin, it isn't clear how changing it could make any difference.) Do you have any basis for that opinion?

That is exactly what it says: "antimatter is identical to matter but moves backward in time. This paper argues that this interpretation is physically real" Indeed. You have introduced all sorts of things which have nothing to do with the content of the paper.

"The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference." Where does that mention "low speed"? If that were true, then it would be possible to determine your speed without reference to something else. OK. I think you are right about this and I was wrong.

Why? Because you can't (won't?) understand it, so it must be wrong?

Common sense is very unreliable. Which is why we use science. I assume they are proceeding as fast as they can. I don't why you think the Higgs boson has anything to do with it.

They will stay synchronised in the train frame. But actually that is irrelevant. Even if the flashes occur with a time difference of t in the train frame, the time difference would not be t in track frame. So, however much you try and complicate it, it doesn't change the underlying facts. So you might as well stick with the simple example, instead of adding all sorts of irrelevant bells and whistles. The postulates are independent of speed. By definition. If the postulate is that the laws of physics (specifically, the speed of light) is the same in all inertial frames, then that means ALL inertial frames. Speed doesn't come into it.

You seem to be saying that because we don't know everything about evolution then we don't know anything. That is just nonsense. We know a lot about evolution, all of it based on evidence. Creationism is just a made up story. Not only is there no evidence for it, it is contradicted by evidence. So about as unmoot as you can get.

What is your point?

Even though the OP asks about simultaneity and the setup is identical to Einstein's explanantion of relativity of simultaneity? OK.

Of course not. Einstein, and the OP, place the obsever (clock) at the center of the train for simplicity. Of course. The observer on the train says the flashes were emitted simultaneously, the observer on the platform says they were not emitted simultaneously. But that is the whole point of the question!

The clocks are stationary at each end of the train. (There is a reasonable synchronization protocol at the start which involves transporting both clocks at the same speed to the ends of the train. But that is all unnecessary as this was all explained pretty clearly by Einstein nearly 100 years ago.)

They are both in the same frame of reference and so, in that frame of reference, they will remain synchronised.

http://www.boctaoe.com/ There are known to be 4 dimensions. There may be more according to some theories. That doesn't change the fact that the universe is not "dimensionless".

Yes. And ?

And yet it seems to.

What does the paper say about voids and white holes?

It is the emission of the flashes which is non-simultaneous (as seen by the "stationary" observers).

That is like saying that the colour purple is the closest thing to a race horse.

The second question is answered by the question defintion (as I, and I think others, understand it): the two flashes occur simulatenously in the train's frame of reference, they travel the same distance to the central clock, at the same speed and so arrive at the same time and stop the clock. The question was: how is this accounted for in the external frame of reference, moving relatively to the train (or, equivalently, that the train is considered to be moving realtively to). As far as I can see, that question has been answered very well by several people.

You don't give enough information to agree or disagree. IF you carefully arrange the distances so that the forces due to each mass is equal then: agree. If you just have random different masses and distances, then: disagree. I don't have time to go through this now (but I agree that the shell theorem is irrelevant in the example you give because you just have three objects). I will give a more detailked reply later.