Genady

BTW, if my numbers are correct, they show a curious relativistic "optical illusion": In 0.5 s, the observer "sees" the ship 0.75 light-seconds closer. It looks like the ship moves faster than light!

For the time dilation effect, let's consider a simple scenario. The ship approaches the observer with the speed 0.6 (c=1). Time dilation for this speed is 1.25. The ship sends light pulses every second. When the distance is 10 light-seconds, a signal goes off. It reaches the observer 10 seconds later, on the observer's clock. Next signal goes out in 1 s on the ship's clock. That is 1.25 s later on the observer's clock. By then the ship is 0.75 light-seconds closer. The signal reaches the observer 9.25 s later, on the observer's clock. Thus, the observer receives the second signal 1.25+9.25 = 10.5 s after the first signal has been sent, i.e. 0.5 s after receiving the first signal. Looks like the "conversation" speeds up rather than slows down. Is my accounting correct?

Not always. It depends where they order from, of course.

We like fairytales. Perhaps it has something to do with our ability and willing to imagine things.

No, I will achieve the correct result in both cases. You are mistaken. I will not try to prove a simple arithmetic to you. Goodbye.

This math is not a matter of Lorentz equation or inverse equation, just geometry. The same in Galilean transformation, x' = x - vt If S' moves to the right relative to S, v is positive. If S' moves to the left, v is negative.

Slender filefish:

Yes, v is not a vector, but it has a sign. The two observers have the same x axis. So, for one observer, the x coordinate has increased, e.g., in 1 sec from 5 to 7. The speed, v = 2. For another observer, the x coordinate has decreased in 1 sec from 4 to 2. The speed v = -2.

Perhaps, not.

Your reply is not true. I didn't mention any of that. This is a meaningless interpretation of what I said, namely: Unless you were replying to somebody else, you're trolling.

Something like this. Especially so for me, since neither I nor any of my friends and family had ever to explain why we turned our backs on the church.

I am rather talking about a generalization being wrong. In his life it might be correct, but in other people lives it is not necessarily so.

Sounds like a false dichotomy. One can have a peace of mind and happiness while searching for truth, without a faith. Also, one can have faith and at the same time be unhappy and disturbed.

I understood why you introduced it in your post. It was not you who has introduced the punctuation mistake into it. It was its creator, RelicsWorld.com. What I don't understand about using memes in general is, why. Why not to say simply, e.g., "As Friedrich Nietzsche said, bla-bla...". This question certainly is OT, however.

Here is something I've found about this photo (Train full of missiles photographed in Ostrava a hoax - spectator.sme.sk😞

This is preaching.

Imagine that you are an AI and learn from data: meme - Bing images (Anyway, I'm referring to this image from a post above: https://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_2023_02/820436526_if-a-person-wishes-to-achieve-peace-of-mind-and-happiness-th-author-friedrich-nietzsche-Copy.jpg.bffe6015bde0ec8ed2688fa9874a0a66.jpg)

Even in translation, it has been introduced by a creator of the meme. (I despise memes.)

I already did. Checked if the punctuation mistake is its inherent feature.

Yes, we could. I just don't find it interesting.

The difference is being an end point vs being an internal point. An internal point has neighbors on both sides, but an end point has a neighbor on one side only. OTOH, you could take out any internal point, say, point 1.5. Then you get two open ends: on the left and on the right of 1.5.

It's nice that we agree. I just don't know what I suppose to do with the quoted statement. I can't discuss anything with that guy, as he is not a member of SFn.

Both predators and prey commonly camouflage by blending with a background using shapes, colors, and textures. It is relatively easy to do when the background is busy, more difficult when it is barren. This seahorse pretends to be a part of or a growth on an underwater cable.

Yes. But perhaps it needs to be also invisible.

I agree with all, except the underlined part. If that part is not true, then "we" is a minority.