The rail-line implies motion; the carriage implies momentum, observer implies matter...observer B implies either the suggestions of other observers or the self discernment of observer A.
The flashes of light imply suggested distractions to tempt observer to divide self into an A vs B conflict of reason.
Observing as self implies perceiving moving differences...observing from another implies holding onto moving differences, while ignoring perceivable momentum of motion.
In this thought experiment (and that's all it is, is imagination) whether or not the light hitting the woman happens at the same time is up to YOU the observer.
A woman (observer A) is seated in the center of a rail car, with two flash lamps at opposite sides equidistant from her. Multiple light rays that are emitted from the flash lamps move towards observer A, as shown with arrows....
Observer A moves with the lamps on the rail car as the rail car moves towards the right of observer B. Observer B receives the light flashes simultaneously, and sees the bulbs as both having flashed at the same time. However, he sees observer A receive the flash from the right first... Simultaneity, or whether different events occur at the same instant, depends on the frame of reference of the observer.
If your theory forces you to say such stupid things as this, you change the theory. How insane is the average person to let this stand for over 100 years?
But it's no wonder, if this was allowed to stand in physics of all places, that this idea made its way into social sciences and philosophy. Now your "truth" is the "truth", and it's a "sin" to say otherwise. We're just outside observers right? So how could we possibly know the truth from their "frame"? Maybe because God says what the truth is, not the individual observing it.
Yeah it's one thing for a concept to be superficially unintuitive but there is a level of absurdity where people should start saying "no this cannot be right".
But I do see why many fall for it. There are many alleged "confirmations" of relativity that on the surface seem plausible, but on closer inspection don't hold up.
GPS uses the Lorentz transformation, which can be derived from SR, except on further inspection SR requires an equal and opposite Lorentz transformation for the other frame, which invalidates it's use.
Star light bending around the sun is another proof of relativity, but a NASA scientist came out and said they can only observe it in the photo-sphere through plasma, so not in empty space. Therefore it can just as easily be refraction through plasma.
But even without those experiments, it's best just to throw a theory out if it is internally inconsistent and illogical.
In this thought experiment (and that's all it is, is imagination)
a) The division of A vs B within the mind of the consenting observer implies imagination. This imagination tempts one to ignore ALL perceivable for the suggestions of another observer.
b) Being perception within perceivable implies "ex-peri-ment" (expression by mind)...the suggestions by another imply "en-chant-ment" (within enchanted mind).
whether or not the light hitting the woman happens at the same time is up to YOU the observer.
The rail-line implies male (motion); the carriage implies fe-male (momentum), and each thing within implies trans-form (matter)...only matter can observe the momentum of motion.
Observation can be tricked with suggested matter (information) to ignore perceivable momentum (inspiration)...being tricked like that establishes another observer (B) outside of self (A).
in the center...opposite sides equidistant
Ray (center) within spectrum (opposite sides) of light (equal)...no distance.
This distance/discord implies a conflict of reason within the mind of a ray, which ignores being within spectrum of light. Within a spectrum of light, the opposites aka pure light (white) and absence of light (black) aren't against each other, but apart from one another, while partials within whole.
Ones consent to any suggestion by another tempts one off-center and towards a side within a distant conflict of reason.
In short...ignorance distances one from discernment.
Observer A moves with the lamps
Each observer came to be "within motion", hence being (life) re-moved (inception towards death). Remove implies ones RE-sponse to being moved.
Those lamps imply artificial light from a suggesting "light-bearer" aka from a Lucifer...who gains the power to cast artificial shadows (ignorance) into natural light (discernment)...if one consents to it.
Observer B receives the light
Only if one consents to the suggestion thereof aka only if one chooses to re-ceive aka re-cipere (to recover/reclaim/retake) artificial light, while ignoring that all natural light is offered to each one ray within.
What is a ray? A raddix/radius aka a center (choice) within a circumference (balance) of moving light. How does light establish a circumference? By specifying (spectrum aka momentum) particulars (rays aka matter).
If your theory forces you to say
a) Sound doesn't force those within to say words to each other...suggested theorism tempts consenting theorists to soothsay (making predictions) in spell-craft aka by shaping suggestible words within perceivable sound. Why? To utilize the ignored force of nature against one another as for example law en-force-ment.
b) Nothing can force one to say anything..."the force is within you".
if this was allowed
Allowances suggested by another ONE tempts one to ignore ALL perceivable aka allow/alocare - "allocate" aka ones location within all.
How insane is the average person
In sanus (within sound) + per sonos (by sound)...not an equal share (average) but odds within equal.
made its way into
Inception implies coming to be alive within way of dying...made/make/mag - "to fashion; fit together" implies the mag-ic handiwork of suggestion tempting ones consent to fit things together, while ignoring that nature sets things apart from one another.
Life can choose to wander to Europe; Asian; Africa; Australia or America aka any which way; while being moved towards death...the one and only way of life.
a) OB (toward; before) + SERVE (watching perceivable or holding onto suggested)
Before implies forwarded (inception towards death) being (life). To serve implies in response to which master? The one (perceivable) who sets free (perception) or the one (suggested) who tempts one to bind (consent) self to another one...to a chosen one?
Are you observing (perception) from inside (perceivable) or by outside (suggested)?
Did another suggested pluralism (we) to tempt singular (one) to ignore self? How could WE observe if each ONE perceives from a different position?
Why would a leader follow? When did your leader aka that which leads life from inception towards death say the word "God" and what happens if life follows the lead from inception towards death instead of resisting it?
The rail-line implies motion; the carriage implies momentum, observer implies matter...observer B implies either the suggestions of other observers or the self discernment of observer A.
The flashes of light imply suggested distractions to tempt observer to divide self into an A vs B conflict of reason.
Observing as self implies perceiving moving differences...observing from another implies holding onto moving differences, while ignoring perceivable momentum of motion.
In this thought experiment (and that's all it is, is imagination) whether or not the light hitting the woman happens at the same time is up to YOU the observer.
https://openstax.org/books/physics/pages/10-1-postulates-of-special-relativity
If your theory forces you to say such stupid things as this, you change the theory. How insane is the average person to let this stand for over 100 years?
But it's no wonder, if this was allowed to stand in physics of all places, that this idea made its way into social sciences and philosophy. Now your "truth" is the "truth", and it's a "sin" to say otherwise. We're just outside observers right? So how could we possibly know the truth from their "frame"? Maybe because God says what the truth is, not the individual observing it.
What's truly astonishing is how could supposed smart men of physics fall for it. By the millions.
Yeah it's one thing for a concept to be superficially unintuitive but there is a level of absurdity where people should start saying "no this cannot be right".
But I do see why many fall for it. There are many alleged "confirmations" of relativity that on the surface seem plausible, but on closer inspection don't hold up.
GPS uses the Lorentz transformation, which can be derived from SR, except on further inspection SR requires an equal and opposite Lorentz transformation for the other frame, which invalidates it's use.
Star light bending around the sun is another proof of relativity, but a NASA scientist came out and said they can only observe it in the photo-sphere through plasma, so not in empty space. Therefore it can just as easily be refraction through plasma.
But even without those experiments, it's best just to throw a theory out if it is internally inconsistent and illogical.
a) The division of A vs B within the mind of the consenting observer implies imagination. This imagination tempts one to ignore ALL perceivable for the suggestions of another observer.
b) Being perception within perceivable implies "ex-peri-ment" (expression by mind)...the suggestions by another imply "en-chant-ment" (within enchanted mind).
The rail-line implies male (motion); the carriage implies fe-male (momentum), and each thing within implies trans-form (matter)...only matter can observe the momentum of motion.
Observation can be tricked with suggested matter (information) to ignore perceivable momentum (inspiration)...being tricked like that establishes another observer (B) outside of self (A).
Ray (center) within spectrum (opposite sides) of light (equal)...no distance.
If one ignores to discern self as the above, then one establishes distance/destance - "discord/quarrel"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/distance#etymonline_v_11510
This distance/discord implies a conflict of reason within the mind of a ray, which ignores being within spectrum of light. Within a spectrum of light, the opposites aka pure light (white) and absence of light (black) aren't against each other, but apart from one another, while partials within whole.
Ones consent to any suggestion by another tempts one off-center and towards a side within a distant conflict of reason.
In short...ignorance distances one from discernment.
Each observer came to be "within motion", hence being (life) re-moved (inception towards death). Remove implies ones RE-sponse to being moved.
Those lamps imply artificial light from a suggesting "light-bearer" aka from a Lucifer...who gains the power to cast artificial shadows (ignorance) into natural light (discernment)...if one consents to it.
Only if one consents to the suggestion thereof aka only if one chooses to re-ceive aka re-cipere (to recover/reclaim/retake) artificial light, while ignoring that all natural light is offered to each one ray within.
What is a ray? A raddix/radius aka a center (choice) within a circumference (balance) of moving light. How does light establish a circumference? By specifying (spectrum aka momentum) particulars (rays aka matter).
a) Sound doesn't force those within to say words to each other...suggested theorism tempts consenting theorists to soothsay (making predictions) in spell-craft aka by shaping suggestible words within perceivable sound. Why? To utilize the ignored force of nature against one another as for example law en-force-ment.
b) Nothing can force one to say anything..."the force is within you".
Allowances suggested by another ONE tempts one to ignore ALL perceivable aka allow/alocare - "allocate" aka ones location within all.
In sanus (within sound) + per sonos (by sound)...not an equal share (average) but odds within equal.
Inception implies coming to be alive within way of dying...made/make/mag - "to fashion; fit together" implies the mag-ic handiwork of suggestion tempting ones consent to fit things together, while ignoring that nature sets things apart from one another.
Life can choose to wander to Europe; Asian; Africa; Australia or America aka any which way; while being moved towards death...the one and only way of life.
Sleight of hand for being tricked off way... https://genius.com/Blondie-one-way-or-another-lyrics
a) OB (toward; before) + SERVE (watching perceivable or holding onto suggested)
Before implies forwarded (inception towards death) being (life). To serve implies in response to which master? The one (perceivable) who sets free (perception) or the one (suggested) who tempts one to bind (consent) self to another one...to a chosen one?
Are you observing (perception) from inside (perceivable) or by outside (suggested)?
Did another suggested pluralism (we) to tempt singular (one) to ignore self? How could WE observe if each ONE perceives from a different position?
SAY from root sekw - "to follow"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/say#etymonline_v_22810
Why would a leader follow? When did your leader aka that which leads life from inception towards death say the word "God" and what happens if life follows the lead from inception towards death instead of resisting it?