> Mostly I was just trying to point out that it appeared commenters were arguing from two different point of views, one with the intuitive cause and effect defi

> Mostly I was just trying to point out that it appeared commenters were arguing from two different point of views, one with the intuitive cause and effect definition, and the one from relativity I think you have hit on something there. Human intuition is a product of human evolution, and for the landscape in which our ancestors evolved, it works very well. I'm talking about moderate speeds and moderate sizes, basically what's covered by classic Newtonian mechanics. Now the "Schrodinger's cat thought experiment" as a pop culture meme serves to re-enforce that the quantum realm of the very small is counter-intuitive - and it is very much so, so we don't expect intuition to be a good guide to quantum physics. Unfortunately there's no light-speed equivalent of Schrodinger's cat; or perhaps the innate assumption is it's a "small" thing if the "very small" realm is blurry, but not so much with the very large and fast. Whatever the reason, people continually arrive with assumption that their intuition is a decent guide to relativity, with tragicomic results seen upthread. Intuitive arguments or analogies about thunderstorms just aren't good guides here.