tinypixieOPstoke on trent, Staffordshire, England UK311 posts
bamabulldog08: I believe we must find common ground. But I also believe there are those we will never achieve common ground with. I could never find common ground with a terrorist, could you???
I ALSO quite clearly stated and I quote my own written words....."Not all differences are acceptable"
Only a fool would accept anything that kills,abuses or harms another person...
anonymous1: I like what you wroteAccording to Einstein, we can all see the same thing, happen at the same time, and perceive it differently; at different times, and all be right, within our own frame of reference.The perception of a person who say's the world is millions of years old, is not more valid that the perception of a person who say's it's 6,000 years old. "This is a fundamental result of Special Relativity."
"From different reference frames, there can never be agreement on the simultaneity of events." Simultaneity - Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity
I apreciate the video link you shared as it goes to show that anything, no matter how scientific/philosophically sound/absurd it appears, can be better proven with animation for those who are visual learners. However, though that be said, the reason i stated what i just wrote, is nothing against you or the intent of what you are presenting.
I myself disagree with Einstein's view/conclusion upon this. Both the passenger and the viewer are incorrect in their view. We are in fact setting the parameters for the discussion by claiming that a.)what one person sees according to their own frame of reference to b.) what the other person sees according to their own frame of reference.
Herein the topic of discussion appears to be the same. However, the parameters of the topic/theory are flawed. I venture to say that both viewers are incorrect. The reason why is, there was only one flash of light and not two. even though the video would lead one to believe there were two separate flashes contacting oppositional points.
I would also like to point out that this video is also a perfect ensample as to why seekers of truth are mislead. The object we see in the video that the passenger is sitting inside of is referred to by train-car(used one time),train(used six times), and car(used two times) collectively speaking, and not in order of useage. So, which is it that we are to conclude? Is it a train-car, car, or train?
Furthermore, a distinct flaw in the presentation also lies within one of the descriptives referring to the observer in the train. It claims that the observer within the train is in the "center" of the train. However according to the evidence in the video the passenger within the train is clearly not in the center of it.
Also, at the beginning of the video it is claimed that the observer on the platform sees two bolts of lightning strike the car. This is also an impossibility since bolts of lightning that strike an object cannot be seen. What is actually seen is the results of the strike 'after making contact' and not the strike itself. The light that emenates from the bolt of lightning takes place after the point of contact and not before, and/or during. There are two more areas in the video that also bother me. Perhaps i might leave those to someone elses frame of reference.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).