Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by James R, Nov 10, 2011.
Illustrate where the equations differentiate between reflected light, and emitted light.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Open another thread and I'll explain it to you. In the meanwhile, I would like you to do the correct thing and lock the original thread. JamesR has had ample time to s...or get off his pot.
There's nothing to explain, also I suggest you go back and re-read my post, because you clearly haven't understood it.
When four days has elapsed from the point of your edit, I will reconsider it.
"Chancies", eh? Why don't you give him another 8?
No, I will not give him another 8, nor would I expect anyone else to.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Only until 03:41 AM 11-19-11 (my time).
If you don't like it, next time don't do silly things like edit your post to address comments made by the audience among themselves - stick to the points made by your interlocuter in the debate you're actualy having.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
8. Any claims of violations of these rules should be made in the related Discussion thread of the relevant Debate. A moderator may follow up on such complaints, deleting any posts in violation of these Rules, unless the debaters agree to some other mutually satisfactory solution.
9. Other than as provided in Rule 8, debaters may not post in the Discussion thread until after the conclusion of the Debate.
JameR did not violate the rules of debate as provided by rule 8 above.
Okay, let’s make this official.....
Mod note: As an independent moderator of the Debates forum who is not involved in this debate (or its proposal or its discussion) I have adjudicated that it is reasonable and acceptable for James R to make his reply up to four days from the time of Tach’s edit of his most recent post rather than from the time of the original posting. Whilst I can find no specific rule in the ‘Standard Rules’ against subsequently editing a debate post two days after posting it, I find this a rather dubious and unethical debating practice. If Tach gets to change things then so should James R.
I am not surprised that Tach wishes to conduct his side of the debate without any latitude, civility or common decency. Moreover, I am not surprised that he wishes to end the debate prematurely rather than face more of my posts.
I only posted here regarding an administrative matter regarding the debate. I am in no way arguing the points raised in the debate or by any people participating in the Discussion thread.
Perhaps the Standard Rules need to be amended to make them a little less restrictive. If a debater cannot raise issues related to how the debate is being conducted in the related Discussion thread, then where would be an appropriate forum? The Debate thread itself is not the appropriate forum, obviously.
While you may have "ample time" to while away the hours on an internet forum, I have MANY responsibilities and commitments in my life, most of which I'll wager you are too young to begin to understand.
While this debate may be the centre of your universe at present, it is relatively low down on the list of priorities that I currently have to deal with.
Now, I would like to provide you, Tach, with an opportunity in your last post of the debate to respond to the arguments and queries I plan to raise against your favorite "file". However, if you wish, I will post a no-content "filler" post as my third post to the debate merely in order to extend the time until I can post a proper response.
Please let me know what you would prefer. By my calculations, I still have a day and a half or so as a deadline from the time of your edit. I think it is perfectly reasonable that my clock should start from the time you last altered your post anyway, if I am expected to respond to it.
And this is one of the reasons I spoke in favour of James R's request, because the alternative is open to abuse.
Nah, bring it on, you have had twelve days (and counting) to support your false claim you made in the other thread, I'll wait for your post, you still have absolutely nothing. I doubt that in the next two days you will manage to prove what you couldn't prove in the past 12. Two extra days will make no difference.
Well, I changed my mind, I am quite interested in seeing if you could really come up with an argument germaine to the subject. I am especially curious to see how you will refute the mainstream references I gave you. So, once again, bring it on.
While I might be young, I still fail to understand how, in 12 days since your false claim to have found errors in my post, you couldn't find the time to prove your point.
Trippy, is a moderator for Formal Debates and has already made a ruling. That would be official, no?
I've also been involved in the discussion in this thread, so it could be argued I'm not impartial.
That's another question.
If you'll note, I also didn't make it explicit that I was commenting as a moderator.
Especially since you clearly sided with James. Yet, you ruled on the subject, not once but twice. I am very disappointed in your behavior, we had a good interaction in the past, this time you did not even seem to have read the detailed explanation I posted on the subject. Even if you thought that my explanation wasn't correct, I gave 4 references from peer reviewed papers....
Are you trying to annoy me?
Yes, because obviously if James and I share a common opinion on something I'm obviously siding with him. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Liar. I did no such thing. I offered an opinion. At no point did I explicitly state that I was speaking as a moderator - for an example of such, see HR's post - the first moderator to speak as a moderator.
And I'm disappointed that you feel the need to present outright fabrications.
Ahh, you need to write in pink to show that you are in mod mode.
Paint me embarrassed, I didn't know HR was a moderator.., even with the red ink. I was letting HR know Trippy was....
And I am also sorry for getting things in an uproar, with the mistake.
Thanks for the heads-up. :thumbsup: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Coming into this as someone who, quite honestly, doesn't have the working knowledge, or care, to review the equations/formulas and understand what is going on, I will comment PURELY as an outside source:
As far as I understand it, the debate in question centers around whether a rolling mirror has a zero Doppler shift, NOT just the one in Tach's paper. As such, any example should be credible so long as it is realistic and/or possible within the bounds of physics.
Thus, unless the math is wrong (and I'm not in any position to prove/disprove it), wouldn't Jame's post be accurate?
Thus, within the strictest sense of the debate... James has provided sufficient proof to disprove the initial statement (ergo, initial statement was that it does not happen, while we now have proof of even just one example in which it does).
So... then wouldn't it be necessary to disprove James' statement in order to declare it invalid?
Again, I don't pretend to understand the debate at hand as I have not had time nor desire to do the relevant research into it - this is merely my thought process as to what the debate entails and what needs to be proven. Feel free to utterly ignore me if I am wrong.
Separate names with a comma.