Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) It's obvious that you have no intention to intelligently discuss anything in good faith. If you ever change your mind, let me know. You might, for example, just to take a recent example, make some attempt to explain (and by "explain" I don't mean LOUDLY DECLARE, ad nauseum) why you think that what I said about Lorentz's purpose in devising the LT in the first place is wrong. Again, I won't hold my breath. Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) see what I mean ? I request that you make a single well thought out post to properly describe your points and you cannot. Its called resetting the discussion to get back on track. What are the points your trying to make ? make it clear enough so everyone can understand it please for everyone's sake.....the evidence of the 68 pages of useless babble is clear evidence that you haven't succeeded yet Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) see what I mean ? I request that you make a single well thought out post to properly describe your points and you cannot. Its called resetting the discussion to get back on track..... See what I mean? You can't even respond to a simple, specific suggestion I made to open an intelligent discussion. Read the thread, if you want to know what it's about. I have often stated, and summarized, my points, after supporting them, throughout the thread. What is it about my "points" that you think you are ridiculing me about? We could start there, I guess. Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) I'm not going to drag though 68 pages of back and forth insults and useless babble to search for them. I would like you to highlight where you have issues with SR in a well defined manner of how you wish to pursue those issues as you refused so many arguments such as those based on math. Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) What "point" of mine do you think you have refuted? You don't have to repeat your supposed refutation, just identify a point. Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) Well I don't know your the one that claims SR is invalid you tell me why you think that. Anytime I correct your posts you think I am missing your points so obviously there is a communication problem. Unfortunately it isn't just me but with everyone else as well...so it must be from your end Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) Well I don't know your the one that claims SR is invalid you tell me why you think that Yeah, that's about what I thought. You don't even know what you think you are arguing about, or should I say "condemning, without argument?" Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) Yeah, that's about what I thought. You don't even know what you think you are arguing about, or should I say "condemning?" oh yeah that helps clarify things thanks for the utter lack of effort at a decent discussion. Nice switch and bait, whenever your shown wrong on posts by the way. been absolutely useless trying to get an intelligent debate with you. Total waste of time. I do enjoy good philosophy and metaphysics debates as well. Too bad you haven't provided one. Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 oh yeah that helps clarify things thanks for the utter lack of effort at a decent discussion. Nice switch and bait, whenever your shown wrong on posts by the way. been absolutely useless trying to get an intelligent debate with you. Total waste of time. I do enjoy good philosophy and metaphysics debates as well. Too bad you haven't provided one.Another self-proclaimed victory, eh? That's all you got. Ya sho nuff aint got no game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) Well you refuse to cooperate to my simple request of posting a good argument to debate. You feel SR has invalidity for whatever reasons that you won't clarify that's your problem not mine. So tell me why should I bother when you can't follow a logical request of getting this thread back on track to your points of view ? and no I don't give a wit about victories in a good debate...the debate itself is oft more important if everyone can learn from them Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) Tell ya what, Shus. Maybe we can find out where we may differ. I'll ask you a series of brief questions to get this started, OK? Just give me a simple, preferably a yes or no, answer,. Please refrain from posting long-winded non sequiturs in response. First question: Do you believe the postulates of SR to be "true?" Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 yes when properly understood in the context SR is designed to address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 yes when properly understood in the context SR is designed to address. OK, and what would that "context" be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) Postulate one. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of Reference note the bold on the two. (these were previously discussed but we can revisit them if you like) postulate 2. the speed of light (more accurately) the constant c is the same for all inertial observers in a vacuum (note Einstien vacuum is void of all particles matter or otherwise including VP) It is not a postulate that a frame is preferred by being at rest, nor does it imply any object is truly at rest. two way speed of light falls under postulate two ie M&M. Nor is it a postulate that an eather is required Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 Postulate one. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of Reference note the bold on the two. (these were previously discussed but we can revisit them if you like) postulate 2. the speed of light (more accurately) the constant c is the same for all inertial observers in a vacuum (note Einstien vacuum is void of all particles matter or otherwise including VP) It is not a postulate that a frame is preferred by being at rest, nor does it imply any object is truly at rest. OK. Is that the "context" you meant, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 Those are the only two postulates under SR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 Those are the only two postulates under SR. Yeah, I understand that. Is that the "context" you were referring to in your initial response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts