Now, I have had the solution for about two weeks now and I am wondering why Pete has suddenly dropped out from the debate.
There has now been a gap of 1 month in this debate. Here are the pre-agreed rules: It seems to me that the discussion has stalled. Formal Debates on sciforums are not open-ended. There must be a way to end the debate. I will allow 1 week for the debaters to produce summary posts as agreed. Then the Debate thread will be closed.
The discussion hasn't stalled, I have had the solution ready as per debate rules for more than a month, Pete has abandoned the thread. As per the rules of the debate, we were supposed to present the solutions simultaneously , since Pete abandoned the debate this is no longer possible.
Hasn't stalled yet, nor have I abandoned the thread. Life has intervened in various ways, but I see light at the end of the tunnel. We'll be up an running again in a week or two.
Tach, we agreed to rules in this debate. You aren't following them. Why not? The particular rules you seem to be forgetting are:
Err, you took 5 weeks to answer. You use a patronizing tone? You don't answer a direct question? Just to name a few. So, what standing do you have to claim that I am the one not following the rules when you break them with impunity?
Yes. I don't mean to. I'm sorry if it comes across that way. That is against the rules. Please point out where I did so, and I will respond at once. It is not OK for either of us to break the rules. If you have a problem with something I do that is against the rules, please point it out. I will do the same.
...and I did not complain that you are breaking the rules, quite the opposite, I waited patiently for you to finish your derivation. This is not the first time, please stop it, for good. If we are to have a dialogue, you need to show respect. I pointed out to you that your solution fails at subrelativistic speeds, see the reference to Rindler. I asked you (twice) to respond. Then please stop your complaints about my breaking rules.
This is an administrative/rules issue, and shouldn't be in the debate thread. My fault. I am sorry. My post wasn't appropriate. Can I ask you to please present your arguments directly, rather than referring to an offsite source? If not, then why not? What question? I noted that in the tracking list as an issue to be addressed. As we agreed in the proposal, we're dealing with one issue at a time. I haven't checked Rindler yet. I may not have access. What edition of Rindler are you using? Are you able to quote or summarize the relevant material?
Thanks for your patience, but the rules we agreed on explicitly say there is no time limit. I agree that we both need to show respect. And I will. One issue at a time. If you ask a direct question, it will be answered in the next post. If you raise several issues in a post, they will be addressed one at a time. I will complain if you break the rules. And I expect you to complain if I break the rules.
The arguments have been posted directly, it is the the bulk document that is kept as a complete paper (because it makes sense to have everything in one place, at least to me). This is not good enough, I noted this flaw immediately, even if it weren't fatal (it is) , you should have addressed it in the very next post. Good, this was the first issue flagged, let's deal with it. 2006. I already did.
I disagree. We've already started discussing the vector transformation issue, I think we should finish that issue first. I'll message the mods for a ruling. In the meantime, I've twice asked you a direct question you haven't answered. I will ask it again in my next post to the debate thread. Please answer it.