It may be blue shifted but it will hit you first. Anything else creates two mutually exclusive realities which defies basic logic.
The time dilation occurs when you are under acceleration
Einstein's equations have no parameter for acceleration. So those who make this claim need to invoke a different theory. SR is based on inertial "frames" moving at constant velocities. No acceleration is invoked to derive the equations for "time dilation".
The beauty of Professor Dingle's fatal criticism of special relativity theory is its simplicity. Much like the innocent child in Andersen's story one need not be an expert to understand it (or a mathematician). Neither does one need more than an elementary understanding of physics. All one really needs is a mind capable of reason. Specifically, one needs a mind capable of knowing the difference between the impossible and the possible - not as a matter of subjective opinion, but as a matter of logical necessity.
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.
The source of one of the beams of light and away from the source of the other. Assume both sources are at a fixed distance from each other.
According to Einstein
So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system
And all that from thought experiments with 0 citation of any published science. A few mentions of other people but not a proper citation in the entire paper. https://dn790004.ca.archive.org/0/items/einstein-1905-relativity/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf
Yet coincidentally he just so happens to work out a solution to the Michelson Morley issue that Lorentz already found. Though it's only a half baked solution which contradicts itself, we can ignore that because "must worship Einstein". And Lorentz's solution didn't contradict itself or require doing away with a basic foundation of objective reality.
Mark Dice, a true independent? Where is your discernment?
The dude shills Trump and got his start being featured on Alex Jones and mainstream media.
lol you'll make excuses for anything.
I remember the day in our little community when a classmate took his own life. I saw a friend of mine later that evening and could see he heard the news. He looked like he'd seen war, just total shell shock.
Yet these kids are so damn casual the same day someone was murdering their classmates right next to them. Ok.
"Don't worry you can turn it off instead" XD
That's cope dude. They may not all be "batshit" levels of crazy, but most took the jab and most still vote for either Biden or Trump.
I think that is probably in reference to the "muh Trump put kids in cages" scare mongering. Or she is just that evil.
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.
Such is life. It is as Jesus said it would be.
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.
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.
I listen to many Christian pastors and they don't preach easy believe-ism. I just watched a talk last night from pastors who you would call "Protestant" stressing how fundamental repentance is based on scripture, and they called out easy believe-ism teachings from false teachers.
He's a Kennedy so as fair as I'm concerned he's without any excuse. Maybe you or me weren't in the know at the time, but this is a another story.
Because that is where their money came from. It only became "laundering" because many of those ads were for illegal services.
It's a stupid case. The guy just made a platform for classifieds. It's like going after the phone company for not shutting down service to prostitutes. It's not their job to hunt for criminals, and what a shitty world it would be if it were. It's big brother via corporations.
archive doesn't work on that page. Looks like it is pay for play and they give you a couple free views.
That's not saying they are genetically the same people. And they aren't.
All this Jewish led study stated was they were "closest genetic neighbors" to some groups of Jews. They also notably say it doesn't apply to the "European" group of Jews, who after all are the ones who created this modern fake Israel.
These are who the Bible says "say they are Jews but are not" IMHO.
Don't do shit? Hah. Denial must be fun.
Surely you don't mean the Palestinians and the Synagogue of Satan?
Perhaps Palestinians are the reals Jews who God gave his promise to. The Lord is going to leave the best and most faithful through all these ordeals. It takes great faith to hang on through all they've been through.
Meanwhile the Harlot living deliciously in Israel thinks she sits a Queen and shall see no sorrow.
If you think they will give us 20-30 years without major engineered crises, you're being too optimistic. But I wish you were right.
We can look for signs, and between the plandemic and Trump vs Biden as the presidential ticket (twice), the writing is on the wall. It shows both the boldness of the enemy and the weakness of our "democracy".
Could be. But even so, tech is still the goto get rich play, so people with money to invest will still want products built.
I would disagree in that you can't say they are providing "no value". They are more free speech than any other platform regarding edgy topics.
They are just squandering money, and not providing enough for what we've given them. They squander money then guilt trip us for not having given them enough.
I can explain many, but I actually don't need to. If I can show a theory is self contradictory and defies the very foundation of reasoning itself (that there is objective truth) then I've exposed it as horrendously flawed.
It's certainly possible to make some correct calculations from a horrible illogical theory. I could create math that assumes Earth accelerates upward and come up with some useful calculations for kinematics of falling objects, but then it will fail miserably elsewhere.
edit: Despite that valid disclaimer, I can show that SR doesn't work for time dilation. As Herbert Dingle and Ron Hatch have already illustrated , under SR there is no one sided time dilation which is found in GPS. So the apparent clock slowing on GPS satellites is only calculated by Lorentz (as Ron Hatch notes) and not Einstein (who requires two symmetrical equations).
Relativity is contradiction after contradiction that its adherents paper over with bad and inconsistent logic. One relativist will give you one excuse to weasel out of a contradiction, compared to another relativist who provides another. Neither are valid. Specifically for the problem of asymmetry in Einstein's time dilation applied in GPS they have multiple excuses all of which are wrong.
"It involves acceleration, therefore is a non-intertial frame" The problem with this excuse is it means the phenomena is no longer governed by SR which does not account for acceleration.
"This is covered by GR which involves acceleration". No further detail is given and if asked for a derivation of this time dilation from GR using acceleration they cannot because it does not exist. SR is the basis for velocity based time dilation, using equations with constant velocity. But since they are bound by velocity being "relative" the effects must be symmetrical and only apparent.