I actually made the same point myself!
Not that I wish to dissuade you of any religious beliefs you may have, but if you
believe in hell and aren’t just using this as a colourful turn of phrase, I do not really think you are suited to this conversation.
Actually, I agree, except I disagree with the assertion I don’t know much.
I just posted one. Read it and understand it, rather than continuing to whine about being persecuted for daring to think outside the orthodoxy. You’re simply asserting that what I said was wrong. You give no justification, no elaboration, no computation, no analysis at all; you just summarily dismiss math as being irrelevant and restate your conclusion. You’re not even bothering to argue anymore; you’re just blatantly stating that you’re correct and then rambling about being persecuted or ignored.
Even more succinctly: Length contraction and time dilation do not work the way you think they do. We’ve been trying to explain that to you for fourteen pages at this point. You have utterly failed at physics.
Then you’ve wasted your life. Fortunately, it’s no great loss.
Thank you, they are a refreshing change after all the ones that aren’t.
Well what goes though my head is how brain washed and wilfully ignorant they are.
I know that answer is probably the opposite from what you see, but I am not paying attention to the number of arguments against me.
Obviously when I am opposing the the current scientific truth of the day I expect it to be me against everyone else.
I pay more attention to the logical quality the truth behind their arguments and mine.
I would say on that basis I am right over 90% of the time and generally they are wrong over 90% of the time.
I have also had occasions where I have faced criticism from a vast majority but proven to be correct in time.
It helps to recognize that most all revolutionary things have gone through this stage of truth that involves wide opposition.
BTW I previously mentioned the invention of the telephone was greeted with scepticism and ridicule, and someone replied that Bell was not met with scepticism.
Well if that is true I do not know, I was not referring to Bell but another inventor of the telephone, I don’t think it was Meucci either though he did face scepticism if I recall, I think there was yet another.
Additionally I am often impressed with those that went against the crowd historically and were proven correct.
I will admit it is not as fun as having a ton of agreement, but necessary for things to change. Each revolution has needed the first to stand up against a majority.
Early on I did have one person who said they agreed.
I have also had a few who have echoed my sentiment about the zealotry present in science, but this is maybe all of 3 post in total.
The former, not the latter.
Then again if I am convinced you will not see the light is it trolling even if I am correct? Probably not since if there isn’t an intelligent reply I’d rather people didn’t give any. And the intelligent reply are about 10%.
It really is just a case of the quality of the argument and not the number of people who happen to side with the status quo.
I believe that if you pick a certain assertion that I and judge my arguments, the counter arguments and then my replies to the objections, I think you will see i actually win.
This seems apparent to me because I will often not get a sensible reply after i point out the errors of the criticism, they just go quiet.
There will be very few cases where yo do not see this pattern.
Some, yes.
Though it might be a reaction to protect their belief system.
Mostly, yes.
I do appreciate that their belief systems do not readily allow an non qualified mathematically unskilled person to prove 109 years of science and ‘technology’ wrong etc…
That is why when they give up on the logic they harp on about the fact that i am unqualified, IMO it is a tacit admission that they can’t flaw my arguments, so they attack me instead.
It isn’t a very easy case to make, there is no contest what so ever as to which side has the numbers or the pedigree.
So they go back to that, sadly for them it is irrelevant to establishing which side is actually correct, as a rule of thumb, sure burn the fringe crank nut.
But if we are only interested in what is actually true and not probabilities, I win.
And if that is not to be so they must stick to scientific debate and avoid personal attacks.
Right now since you are speaking honestly and not spinning, my opinion of you is presently fine.
As for those who have provided data, only kimble has done so and he did prove me wrong.
So I respect him and appreciate him for being the only person to actually take one of my thought experiments seriously.
But he and others have not done that before or since on any other thought experiment, because I assert they are unable to do anything other than prove my case.
Additionally while I was unable to follow Kimbles math, and I didn’t believe him, I proved that one wrong myself within a day, IMO the fact that this one has been faulted by 2 others and myself where none of the others have been faulted by anyone is an important point that makes the others stand stronger.
You will note that no one is taking up my challenge to show where I have been proven wrong besides with that one example.
If you were just stupid it would be bad enough. But you’re stupid with delusions of majesty. That’s extra sad.
You have proven absolutely nothing - to prove it - you have to do the work - work which, by your own admission, you are unable to do. Further - there is only one person on this board that you have ‘proven’ your thought experiments to, and that is yourself - if that is your only requirement - there is nothing for you to do here.
With you - there is nothing ‘intelligent’ to debate - and others have tried to help you with your misunderstandings - and I have learned a great deal FROM THEM by reading it.
But you are, without a doubt, a moron when it comes to both logic and physics, and likely a ton of other things other than throwing together a bunch of words that aren’t meant to be used in the same sentence.
Obviously I think I am correct, sure. That tends to be how must discussions work, certainly arguments.
But why do you say majesty?
Does being right equal majesty?
Being right about something big?
Then it should be easy, just find a point of my logic, and tear it to shreds with your superior logic.
Them allow me to reply and we will see who breaks from logic first, and who has to resort to straw men attacks and personal attacks.
I am not holding my breath, you certainly will not engage with me in a logical discourse on the facts.
In fact how about this, if you do, and if you win (decided by who breaks from logic and instead has to use a personal attack, or just ignore) I will admit that I am full of it and leave, ok?
Call my bluff.
Only none condition, when you select the logic of my mine to address, just run it by me first to ensure it is actually something I stand by.
Because you think you’re overturning a century of science. Science that’s used and verified every day, by the way.
The gall, is amazing. And actually sad. You’re the fool strutting in the town square who’s convinced himself he’s king.
The problem is that you’re not even wrong.
Your saying “5 + apple = red”
There’s no way to logically refute that because it fails at such a fundamental level that it is neither confirmable nor falsifiable. It’s just a bunch of bullshit.
Random thoughts:
It’s a colorful turn of phrase, dimwit, but I wouldn’t consider this a “conversation” on my part. It’s just mockery.
Which further demonstrates just how ignorant you are.
It would be sad even if all he had was delusions of competence.
[quote=“mythoughts, post:681, topic:682160”]
No.
Yes.
It keeps getting better! Or, really, the same.
This - exactly this.
as for your challenge - you’ve already been shown countless times in this thread why your logic is wrong, not to mention your physics - now you want to waste more time with another test?
Even then IF (by some odd coincidence) your ‘logic’ is correct but the conclusion is not - I would still call that bad logic. Using “good” logic to prove a ‘faulty conclusion’ is still bad logic. (as Trinopus and I discussed earlier).
You are the beaten boxer, laying in the middle of the ring after the fight is over, congratulating yourself for taking so many punches and that you bled better than the other guy.
Go away - take your crap to ‘storm front’ - they seem to like your kind there.
More like the Black Knight.
Great, then it should be soooo easy to prove me wrong.
So why won’t you do it, oh, it’s already been done.
Great, so all you have to do if copy and paste what has already been done!
Super easy, and I am making a promise that provided I agree with your target, I will accept I am universally wrong on all points.
Oh, but for some reason you will find an excuse not to do this!
No, I want you to end a waste of time that will surely occur if you do not take this golden opportunity to use logic to prove me wrong!
Ok, so now my logic is correct?
But if my conclusion is wrong, then you could show how wrong the conclusion is.
If my conclusion has faulty logic, if it misses somehow you can show that. With logic not name calling.
Great, so show the flaw in my logic.
It is easy to explain the flaw in poor logic, take any logical falacy and it can often be very easily shown.
Then here is your opportunity to prove it.
You see painting a pretty word picture as you cower in the corner unwilling to fight doesn’t get you victory.
Chicken, as I predicted this so easy thing that will make me leave you are unwilling to do.
If you think your excuses make you look like you are in the right, you are mistaken.
Why would you let me away thinking I have scared you away? Girly chicken man.
I am using personal attacks and name calling to actually arm twist someone to keep on topic and into logical debate. Still no luck.
You attempt at “chicken” is as moronic as you are. I have made no excuses for anything.
So, we’ll just add ‘reading comprehension’ to the plethora of skills you lack.
a) I never said any of your current logic is correct - I said in this ‘little challenge’ of yours that hasn’t happened yet that the use of ‘good logic’ to prove a ‘faulty conclusion’ is still bad logic.
b) I never said I didn’t accept your little challenge - but you keep adding little rules to it “run it by me first to see if I agree” and other bullshit.
c) I’m simply telling you that your drivel would be better accepted at boards with a less qualified audience.
In the end - this entire thread is full of your “logic” - and it has been defeated already - there is no reason to continue it. If you wish to play your little game - go right ahead.
“no luck” ??? - you’re the one trying to claim victory before you’ve even laid out your argument. You have zero chance at a logical debate on this board - if you want one - open it up in ‘Great Debates’ where the rules are more stringent.
Secondly - this is, by definition, trolling - which shows your true colors even better.
True, they are ignored.
And I might be a jerk. But that is opinion.
I might be deluded. But that is opinion.
And those 2 could be true and yet I might still be correct in multiple thought experiments.
The important point you make is that my thought experiments are mostly ignored, that is a fact!
BTW maybe people attacked by so many at once tend to become jerks?
No wonder, it shows a variability in the speed of light, light above and below C.
Which is opposed to SR’s primary claim that motion doesn’t effect the speed of light.
Yes, you did actual math which is apparently easy for those who know how, and you proved me wrong.
If you could actually do it a second time I will admit I am wrong all round and abandon this with full contrition.
But for some reason you are unwilling to use math do this this a second time.
Additionally I did not accept your conclusion, but because you put the time in to disprove it, I decided to be just as detailed and clear to prove you wrong, and I discovered that I was wrong. In a thought experiment I actually warned was new and thought up in a tired state before it was addressed. Additionally I myself took less than 1 day to prove I was wrong.
My proving it wrong was not because you did, but because the idea was flawed.
Thought experiment: If you were a hot dog…and you were starving, would you eat yourself?
wow, because it sure read like you did, ok…
No, that is the only rule and it was in the initial offer to make sure the argument selected was one I genuinely made and not something misconstrued by you.
Essentially I don’t trust you to make an honest selection.
You guys seem under qualified as is.
No, see Kimble’s admission that they are ignored as I assert.
[QUOTE]
Again as Kimble asserted.
I am not allowed.
This is not trolling, it is opposing personal attacks with a demand for an intelligent debate, or be shamed.
You are unwilling to enter an intelligent debate, so now you are being shamed.
But hey, MAYBE you will find one of my arguments and argue with it in an intelligent way that respects truth.
I really am an eternal optimist.
Come on, stop the excuses and prove me wrong once and for all.
Come on, Calatin.
You have done honest, why not stick to that.
If I am wrong, Special relativity does not need you to look like a bunch of children to defeat me.
It should be easy.
After all no one has said I am wrong but I have brilliantly difficult thought experiments to unravel, I am an idiot right?
So if I am the idiot, how come you guys are playing the fool?
Why not just POINT OUT THE ERRORS IN MY LOGIC?