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) 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.