Einstein told us that the speed of light must always, not only appear, but BE the same in every frame of reference no matter how fast we are moving towards or away from it. So even if you are moving at half the speed of light towards a light beam, the entire universe must conspire to either "speed up" or slow down your "time" to account for this difference.
If that makes sense to you, you are no longer sane. You cannot create scenarios of two mutually exclusive events at the same time and call that reality. This is fundamental to reason.
To show this contradiction, consider you are running away from a light beam and towards another at the same time. You move at half the speed of light. Of course in real life you will encounter the light you are moving towards first, but in Einstein's universe both beams MUST (in your world) hit you at the same time. However, in Einstein's universe, someone else will see them hit you at different times because they also MUST see light travel at a certain speed. This is just plain fucking stupid.
At best you can have an illusory effect, but to confuse that with a real difference in simultaneity is to truly give up on reason itself.
It was Dingle's arguments (as well as Percival) that helped me see that our intuition is right, and this theory makes no fracking sense. It's like the midwit meme, on the ignorant side you're like "this makes no sense" in the middle you rationalize it with a bunch of arguments and on the adept side you say "this makes no sense"
I'm glad I never studied it much in college because I would have probably tried to convince myself of it.
Let me ask you, whats the highest math youve completed?
I can say from personal experience, many of my classmates who were in calculus, were not very religious people.
In fact its kinda strange, it seems some of the more famous mathematicians will become religious after looking at the math.
https://scienceandnonduality.com/article/god-is-a-mathematician/
Just quoting a paragraph from one of einsteins papers, and one with alot of fancy technical terms in it to boot. Isnt proof of much. Show me a equation that he got wrong and I might be more inclined to listen.
I dont think those words mean what you think they do, they all prolly have some stupid technical definition, You see stuff like that in specialized fields all the time. Seems intentional to me, but who knows why egg heads do what they do sometimes. And when I say intentional, I mean they want to confuse the average person so they cant make heads or tails of these kinda reports.
This quora quote seems to prove that he didnt think he was 100% right about everything either.
And by the way I look at things like those bubble chamber pictures.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/bubble-chamber
And it becomes quite, quite hard to say that this universe isnt built on patterns and rules. It may very well be that god created "everything", but how does proof of the construct invalidate his existence, I dont get it.
I believe in something, an all pervasive force that we and everything in this universe is created from, but it aint no modern god sitting in the clouds judging you for every mistake you have made in your life lmao.
And I certainly dont believe paying the church tons of money will absolve you of your sins either.
Your comment is all over the place and not very focused. My focus is a criticism of the broken logic of relativity.
To answer your question, I've taken all the math classes required for physicists, but I'm not claiming to be a mathematician or physicist. I am a critic from outside the field.
But one doesn't need advanced math to apply critical logic to a theory. A detective doesn't need calculus to prove someone guilty, but he does need sound logical reasoning. Focus on what you can grasp and deal with that first. I'm not someone who can check Einstein's tensor equations for their mathematical validity, and that isn't necessary (or time efficient).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics
Until the truth is seen, the left (math) and right hands will oppose each other.
It isn't just the math that needs re-examination.
"God is number." said Pythagoras as he "rediscovered" the monochord as teaching tool of HARMONY, the principle of Divine Geometry and Golden Proportions that are the characteristics of god's work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochord#/media/File:Fotothek_df_tg_0006469_Theosophie_%5E_Philosophie_%5E_Sonifikation_%5E_Musik_%5E_Musikinstrument.jpg
So from whence came both god/s and the math that explains/defines?
https://www.scribd.com/document/398575567/230403079-Jesus-Christ-Sun-of-God-Ancient-Cosmology-and-Early-Christian-Symbolism-by-David-R-Fideler-pdf
Number is ideation materialized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
No single equation could ever contain the All, as the part cannot contain the whole.
Ones consent to suggested relativism establishes a conflict of reason aka one side against another...both broken sides relating to each other by consent to the same suggested -ism.
All gives (inception) and takes (death) each one (life)...taking suggested math classes from one another tempts one to ignore that.
"I've taken all" implies the biggest claim one could make within all...
a) How could one suggest a theory without tempting another to agree or disagree, hence establishing logic/reason (agree vs disagree)?
b) Critic/krinein - "to separate"...consenting to a suggested theory implies "putting together", hence contradicting critic.
"Everyone's a critic" implies each ONE separated from ONE another...no logic/reason required for critic.
So why reason about lowest vs highest math if energy transforms from ONE to another ONE?
a) Not ALL matter...each one particle of matter within ALL motion.
b) Structure implies matter together...motion implies matter apart from ONE another.
If ALL is ONE in energy; then why mathematically equating that which nature differentiates?
What if reason (versus) makes ones mind incapable of implication (if/then)?
One needs to breathe...where is the need for logic in that? What is a gasping infant reasoning about?
a) IM implies IN, hence within possible... https://www.etymonline.com/word/im-#etymonline_v_1519
Only within actual (inception towards death) can a potential (life) respond outwards.
b) THE difference; THE impossible; THE possible implies suggested the-ism tempting each different one to consent alike.
Few suggest the-ism to equalize differences among many...