Comparison of Special Relativity with a Galilean "preferred frame" theory

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by James R, Jan 14, 2013.

  1. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    I did not backtrack at all. I answered exactly what you asked. You did not ask for justification for agreement; you only asked for agreement. And now you are trying to bait me into following you further off-topic. Get over yourself. You asked for any agreement, then when you got an answer you did not like, you moved the goalposts and demanded a full address of what Tach already schooled you on.

    Now quit posting off-topic in a vain attempt to justify yourself. Your arguments in this thread should stand on their own merit.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    Please reread posts 291, 293 and 294. The debate thread was the topic at the time. Either you know this and you're backtracking, or Tach still has yet to get a single person on this forum to agree with his assessment of that thread.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265

    Once again, we are talking about your errors in THIS thread, we aren't talking about your errors in THAT debate thread. The debate thread was long closed when you threw your toys out of the pram instead of addressing the physics. Stick to the topic and stop the diversions.

    Agree on what? that you post crackpottery and you try to pass it as "natural philosophy"? this is self evident, you have been doing it for years. It goes like this:

    RJBeery: "A"
    Mainstream people: "A" is incorrect, "B" is the correct statement.
    RJBeery: "B" is exactly what I said.

    As a good example, look at your exchange with przyk in this very thread, it is very illustrative of your crank behavior. He keeps correcting you, you keep claiming that his corrections agree with your fringe positions espoused earlier, he corrects you again....
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    No, Tach. Words mean things, and I'm not going to let you get away with this, particularly when your sycophants like Syne are parroting what you say without bothering to actually understand the facts. You spew bullshit just as readily as the cranks you attack and I'm calling you out. You say that the debate thread "confirms" that I'm "unable to perform any math" and that it "showcases" my "ignorance in terms of basic relativity". You're making these absurd statements which are completely refutable, so please, review the debate thread and point out precisely which post made you come to those conclusions, or else shut the hell up about it and admit when you're wrong. I can do it; I've done it in this very thread in fact. You know, like an adult might do.
     
  8. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    I have been talking about that debate thread, have told you that I agree with Tach on that debate, and that is all you originally asked for. You cannot claim someone is "backtracking" from goalposts you just moved. I simply refuse to help you inundate this thread with completely off-topic chatter about a completely different subject/thread. If I were not talking about that debate thread then why on earth do you image I would be calling it off-topic?

    I understand plenty, and no, you will not bait me into making this thread about that old debate. You can start a new thread if you wish to reopen that subject (as per the forum rules).
     
  9. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Time to stop the desperate diversions, keep your promise and start eating your hat.
     
  10. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    So it's "yes I agree with him but I won't say why"? Couldn't imagine a more cowardly comment. Anyway, presuming Syne isn't just a sockpuppet for Tach I'll bow down, issue a mea culpa, and eat my proverbial hat because apparently there exists someone in this world who concurs with Tach in his assessment of our debate.

    Anyway, I was bored yesterday but I'm done feeding the trolls now.
     
  11. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    We are different people so eat your hat.
     
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    So you moved the goalposts only to justify ad hominems. Both are fallacies, and neither helps you in any way, as it only illustrates your intellectual dishonesty.

    Good job proving Tach right about your behavior in this thread.
     

Share This Page