Genady

Not all. Some people are very reluctant to eat unfamiliar stuff, e.g., my mother. Some, OTOH, want to try a new thing when they see it, e.g., I. And everything in between. Fortunately, I grew up in the Northern West Asia, and then lived in the Middle East, NYC, and now in Caribbean, so my interest in food diversity has been satisfied. But I met people - visitors - who being in such places were happy to find McDonald's BTW, there is no McDonald's in Bonaire

LOL

Did you try a good light?

Just wanted to add that it is a well-known phenomenon in astrophysics, the "superluminal motion". Superluminal motion - Wikipedia

The phrase "the points end at 1.5" is wrong. The correct phrase is, "the interval end at 1.5". This does not contradict not containing the point 1.5. For example, you can say that your property ends by the river, but the river is not on your property. If you distinguish between the interval and the point, there is no contradiction. Yes, this is correct. The length is 0.5 in both cases.

Yes, he can see that. But that stuff is not very close to the EH. The minimal stable circular orbit for non-rotating BH is 3 times farther from the singularity than EH. Anything below that will fall in.

I'm guessing here, but I don't think it will happen. Assuming they all free fall from far-far away, he will not catch up with anything ahead of him. All that stuff will be redshifted to undetectability, and he will not see it.

We don't say this. We might say about the left interval that it ends at 1.5, but it does not contain the end point. It contains everything before 1.5, i.e., everything that is < 1.5, but not the point 1.5. I don't see anything not logical here. Can you point to any contradiction? I don't see any geometrical issue at all. The length of the interval stayed the same as before.

Hi there. Welcome!

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.