Proposal: There is no Doppler shift of light reflected from a moving mirror

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by James R, Nov 8, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,360
    Moderator note: Tach started a separate Proposal thread in an attempt to alter the topic of the current debate.

    This is better discussed in the context of the current debate proposal, so I have merged the threads.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,360
    Great!

    You appear to be accepting my proposal to debate the topic of this thread, namely that "There is no Doppler shift of light reflected from a moving mirror".

    After all, this was your claim that led you to write the document you keep referring to.

    Please confirm that you are accepting the proposed debate topic and the suggested parameters of the debate.

    This debate is about your claim:

    If you think your document establishes your position, you are free to introduce it into the debate.

    You get to go first, because you will be arguing the affirmative.

    I suggest that in your first post, you put your document up as proof of your claim. I will then be forced to respond to that document, as you wish.

    There's no possible reason why you would refuse to participate in this debate, is there?

    Nevertheless, I BET that you'll continue to wimp out.

    So, which is it to be, Tach?

    Debate, or wimp out?

    Going to keep digging that hole for yourself here, or jump in with both feet to support the claims I guess you know are unsustainable?

    You're between a rock and a hard place, aren't you Tach? Once again you've got yourself into trouble, and you can't find a way out. Why not just admit your mistake and end the embarassment?

    Or, if you REALLY believe your document establishes your claim that there is no Doppler shift from a moving mirror, then let's start the debate.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    4,136
    Basically, Tach is asking for you to "expose your hand" before he accepts any formalities. That way he can decide before the debate has begun whether he feels he can defend his position.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    But you two guys have traditionally combined forces in making false claims and accusations about my files, my skills, etc. So, why not continue this tactic of "pack on wolves" now, when I even suggested that I take on both of you at the same time? You two attacking me and my posts has been the modus operandi for quite a while, why the change right now?


    But this is what got the whole debate started: your false claims (posts 201,202) followed by JamesR false claim (post 241) that my file is "full of errors". Actually JamesR laced his post with a full spectrum of insults. So, why the change now? Perhaps because you realized that there are no errors in the file?


    Fine. The two of us, one on one. No JamesR (as usual, he had no scientific contribution, just ad hominems). I will phrase the statements exactly like the way you have it above. "This document proves that [insert statement here]." You, in turn, are obligated to try to prove that there are errors in the file(s).
    As long as you keep it civil and you refrain from insulting me, we keep it rolling. The moment you start with the insults and the personal attacks, I terminate the debate . Ok?


    I am ready. Are you ready? A debate thread for the two of us, ONLY.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2011
  8. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Not exactly, I am calling their bluff, it has been going way too long, since post 201, 202 and on to post 241. Since they have no cards, I decided to go ahead and debate with pete.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,360
    RJBeery:

    I think he knows full well that he CANNOT defend his position. Therefore he will continue to equivocate and bluff and avoid and introduce tangents in the hope that we'll all forget his errors eventually.

    What he doesn't realise is that the longer this goes on, the more this error will stick in the minds of readers. Moreover, I will forever have the fact that he was afraid to debate me to hold over him.

    And all this because Tach is incapable of owning his mistakes.


    Tach:

    If you wish to "take on" both Pete and myself in the debate I am proposing here, I am willing to join Pete on my side. It seems a tad unfair to have a two-against-one contest, but if that's what you want...

    You know that the purpose of a Proposal thread is to mutually agree the terms of the Debate, don't you? You did read the thread I referred you to above, didn't you? You do understand what the Formal Debates forum is about, don't you?

    As I said above, if you think your beloved file proves your silly claim that there is no Doppler shift from a moving mirror, then you are very free to rely on it in out Formal Debate.

    What I will NOT do is argue the issue in this Proposal thread.

    For the record, I am happy for you to include your file as part of the debate in order to attempt to prove your side of the debate.

    Don't be silly. I will post my scientific rebuttal of your position when you agree to the Formal Debate I have suggested. If I cannot do so, then you'll win by default.

    Let it be known that Tach is afraid to debate me!

    Let it be known that Tach cannot prove his claim that "I can prove this quite easily, there is no Doppler shift of a moving mirror."

    Let it be known that Tach has wimped out!

    I knew you would, Tach, from the start. You post all kinds of crap, but when you're called on it you won't follow through. You slink away and pretend it never happened.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,360
    What a transparent farce.

    I called your bluff, Tach, by starting this thread.

    You couldn't follow through.
     
  11. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    You lost your chance after you lied at post 241 and you continued to lie ever since. If you had anything then, you had ample opportunity to post it. But you had nothing, you were just lying all along. Now, you can sit out this round and watch me debating pete. Tough.


    You also lost the bet, I just agreed to debate pete. He's the better physicist anyway. You can continue to kibbitz and lurk, this is your forte anyways.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2011
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,360
    You still have your chance.

    But I know you'll never take it. Because you're wrong, and you know it.

    And you're afraid to debate me.

    I'll see no more claims of superiority from you, Tach. This is a record of you wimping out, and I'll be linking to it EVERY Time you make a silly assertion from now on, I assure you.

    If I had lied, you would take me on in the debate and prove that I lied. But you won't, because you can't.

    There's no lurking here, Tach.

    I am standing proud. I have called you out. I am waiting for you to be a man and stand by what you wrote. Or be a man and own your error.

    You are a pretend physicist, Tach.

    I note that in the second post of this thread you wrote:

    So, essentially you conceded the debate right from the start.

    You let slip that you know you were wrong, and that you could never win this debate.

    But instead of owning your mistake like a man, you're STILL avoiding and pretending and posturing.
     
  13. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    The discussion began with your statements:
    [post=2850140]Post 174[/post]:
    [post=2850145]Post 177[/post]:
    Once we agree on a topic, I will of course be obliged to defend my position.
    But first you have to state exactly what the topic is.

    Of course.
    So please propose a topic in the agreed format and we'll go from there.
     
  14. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    I already did. I already took pete's challenge. He's the better physicist and he can post math. You are neither.

    LOL. You know what the description for an ideal kibbitzer is? "Someone whose feet don't stink and who keeps his mouth shut". Time for you to start working on the two requirements.
     
  15. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    *Ahem*

     
  16. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    The topic format is as you suggested:

    1. There is zero Doppler shift for X situation as explained in [this] file.
    2. There is zero Doppler shift for Y situation as explained in [this] file.

    The name of the topic is "Zero Doppler shift for wheels rolling at relativistic speeds".

    If you are in agreement, I am ready to open the debate.
     
  17. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    We need to agree on a single topic, and you've written three.

    I'm not debating rolling wheels in a formal debate, it's too complicated. Mirrors only.

    "X situation" is not explained in that file, nor is "Y situation".
     
  18. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Yes, they are closely related and it isn't complicated at all. You will see.
    Besides, what do you have to lose? I am the one taking the risks expanding the claims. More chances for you to prove me wrong.
    In addition, you may end up learning something really interesting.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,360
    Nice attempt at diversion.

    Pete did not challenge you. I did. You wimped out.

    As for who's the better physicist, we'll never know, will we? You're afraid to pit your superior physics skills against mine. Why? Because you're full of self-doubt. You know I'll come out on top, despite your empty claims that I'm not as good as you.

    If you thought otherwise, you'd immediately accept my challenge.

    Why not just admit that this is a debate you know you can't win? You have been bested by a superior opponent.

    By the way, if you really think I can't post math, perhaps you should look at my posting history here. I've been around here since 2001 - probably before you were born by the sounds of you - and I have a long and extensive record of posting on physics and math topics. And unlike you, I rarely make mistakes.

    That's why so many people are afraid to debate me. I'll just add you to the long list of pretenders who were all full of themselves until it came to the crunch.

    How old are you? Really!

    Really, it jsut gets easier and easier to dismiss you as an obnoxious pretender.

    Have you any experience of debating at all? It sounds like you don't.

    A formal debate proposition is usually phrased in the following form:

    "Proposition: that there is no Doppler shift of light reflected from a moving mirror"

    One side takes the affirmative position; the other side argues the negative.

    Note how the topic is well defined. It does not included unspecified "situation X" or unspecified "files".

    Your one about zero Doppler shifts for wheels sounds better.

    I suggest:

    "That there is no Doppler shift of light reflected from a wheel."

    I will debate you on that topic: you affirmative, me negative.

    Agree?

    No, of course you won't. Pretender.
     
  20. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    No, I'm not biting.

    Your document and your original claim was specifically about moving mirrors, and that there is no doppler shift off a moving mirror.

    If you can't state clearly what the document is supposed to prove, then how can anyone tell whether it is correct?

    What about these:

    "Zero Doppler shift for mirrors moving at relativistic speeds"

    "For source and detector at rest, there is zero doppler shift detected for light reflected from a mirror moving at an arbitrary angle."

    I am ready to debate against either of those.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,360
    How transparent.

    What you are attempting to do is to leave the topic vague and non-specific so that you have wiggle-room when things start getting difficult for you. Then you'll complain that the debate isn't really about whatever your latest error happens to be.

    You're not willing to take risks. You're afraid to debate me.

    Pretender.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,360
    Watch Tach squirm and back away and divert and prevaricate.
     
  23. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Oh, shucks, against my better judgement, I'll debate you.

    So, knowing the type of person you are, I will set the title as :

    "Proof that the light reflected of the circular rim of a mirror-like wheel shows zero Doppler effect between the source and the receiver in the case of the wheel rolling without slipping at relativistic speeds"


    Called your bluff.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page