Discussion: Lorentz invariance of certain zero angles
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
The discussion thread is generally for people other than the debaters to discuss the goings on in the debate thread. The debate rules which you agreed to state:
"Potential rule violations and administrative issues must be discussed in the Discussion thread.
Other posts by Tach and Pete to the Discussion thread should be kept to a minimum:
Direct questions from other members may be briefly answered, but extended discussions should be taken to another thread.
Other than to discuss Debate administrative issues, Pete and Tach may not address or respond to each other in the Discussion thread."
I'd say you are in violation.
So, the trolling posts by RJ, Neddy Bate and arfa that have nothing to do with the Debate are ok?
My first post was a bewildered comment on the effort it takes to establish ANY set of mutually agreeable facts with you, Tach. Pete is either a saint or a masochist.
My second post was a long-overdue response to the many comments you've made about our debate. I had assumed that you knew what you were saying was bullshit (just as the rest of the world does) but then I began to consider the possibility that you've actually believe that I "lost" the debate.
Tach said:
Tach said:
Now take a deep, slow breath, put on your rational-thinking cap and re-read the following:Tach said:
In other words, I first proved you wrong in the debate, at which time you simultaneously moved the goalposts AND tried to shut down any more discussion:RJBeery said:
...which forced me to start another thread to address your continued confusion. Perhaps you missed this comment in our debate discussion thread?Tach said:
Anyway, Tach, believe what you will. If you would kindly give me your mailing address I have a perfect Christmas gift in mind for you:
I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about you.
Establishing mutual understanding takes time.
You guys really aren't helping. If you want to discuss previous discussions, go somewhere else. Please.
Discussing the absurdity of time it's taking to establish a mutual understanding here is a valid topic of discussion for this thread in my opinion. You're giving Tach more respect than he deserves...are you taking him under your wing in some kind of social project or something?
That being said, I don't have a dog in this fight and will respect your request to move on...
Hi Tach,
I think we have a few issues that need to be addressed separately:
2.1 Tach's proposed measurements
2.2 Pete's proposed measurements
2.3 Measuring remote events using background Rods and Clocks
Is that OK?
I'm going to just address 2.1 in my next post, and the following post will be at the top of a new page, so I'll use that to post a fresh copy of the tracking list.
I think we have a few issues that need to be addressed separately:
2.1 Tach's proposed measurements
2.2 Pete's proposed measurements
2.3 Measuring remote events using background Rods and Clocks
Is that OK?
I'm going to just address 2.1 in my next post, and the following post will be at the top of a new page, so I'll use that to post a fresh copy of the tracking list.
Sure. I think that we went over 2.1 in much greater detail than 2.2 and 2.3 , so they will need a lot more attention.
This is rich.
Hi Tach,
In the proposal thread, I suggested that we conduct this debate not with the goal of determining a winner and a loser, but of first finding common foundations, then building on those foundations to a mutual conclusion.
One of the conditions agreed is that we remain polite, and discuss the topic in a spirit of mutual discovery.
I don't think you are participating in that spirit.
Your repeated explanations regarding your methodology are not clear, and you seem unwilling to explore my objections.
My next post to the debate will be in response to the first part of post 38, the last post that addressed my methodology.
We will return to discuss your methodology, but when we do I ask that you take a step back, try to not react defensively to suggestions that you might be mistaken, and let us explore the objective science together.
In the proposal thread, I suggested that we conduct this debate not with the goal of determining a winner and a loser, but of first finding common foundations, then building on those foundations to a mutual conclusion.
One of the conditions agreed is that we remain polite, and discuss the topic in a spirit of mutual discovery.
I don't think you are participating in that spirit.
Your repeated explanations regarding your methodology are not clear, and you seem unwilling to explore my objections.
My next post to the debate will be in response to the first part of post 38, the last post that addressed my methodology.
We will return to discuss your methodology, but when we do I ask that you take a step back, try to not react defensively to suggestions that you might be mistaken, and let us explore the objective science together.
We agreed on politeness, Tach.
We're not going to get anywhere by picking fights.
I presume this means you're conceding that Tach isn't fixable by simply giving him a hug?
You mean that you have time to post in other threads but you don't have time to post your solution to your own methodology? It took me less than one hour to write up the solution to your methodology. You surely have it by now, so why are you asking for a delay of several weeks?
Is this the real reason or you found that both methodologies confirm that the angle is zero? I mean, you spent quite a lot of effort in setting up the methodology, there is one very short step to completing the calculations, one hour work, maximum. I don't understand this lack of interest all of a sudden. We both put in a lot of work, let's finish.
You're taking the piss right?