Re: SR is built on false assumptions....continued

Cajun*** wrote:
"tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1147866378.103613.280890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cajun*** wrote:
"tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1147495981.587144.180180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cajun*** wrote:

It happened again yesterday early. I wrote and wrote but it did not
post. Before I tried to send it, though, I saved it as .txt in MS word

and here it is:

SNIP

Let's just
proceed on the basis of what the data_would_show if we could get
access to it. If and when we've reached agreement on that, then if
all we have left is whether or not the data has been altered, then
we'll simply have to agree to disagree because I have no interest
in debating such a topic.

It is incredible to me that you were suckered by the Stooges into
believing that is a relevant issue here.

A couple of observations about all of the above.

1) My preliminary conclusions, which I was simply trying to confirm by
checking with you (which is the courteous thing to do, btw) about whether or
not our data is accurate came from what you posted to me. You were the one
who posted paragraph after paragraph about how the government cannot be
trusted and how we must all do our civic duty to question the government,
and all of this was posted by you to me in response to my comments that
we've got reams and reams of data which show how the time rates of clocks
might vary.

No, you said, "I've spent quite a bit of time studying the data which
we
receive from satellite clocks, and all I can tell you is that there's
none of
it which supports your contention that time rates vary as you predict
they
would, and much of it that defeats it."

Now, you've come over to my side, but you claim my side is what your
side was previously. Care to explain what's going on? Are you one of
the Stooges putting me on? Or are you just forgetful about which side
you're on?

So my inference that you question whether or not we have all
the relevant data, or whether or not it's been altered came from those
comments by you to me.

No, not so. Quote me where I said anything about alterations or
conspiracies. My question was whether or not we had all the relevant
data wrt your statement that all the data shows you're wrong (or
words to that effect. You provided no data to look at, nor did you
ever explain what the data said is wrong with my idea.

However, instead of coming to any sort of hard conclusion, I specifically
used the term "seem" as a courtesy to you in that I didn't want to draw any
final conclusions about what you believe without checking with you first.

I cannot believe you think that is a "courteous act" on your part.
That is
so transparent behavior no less so than the emperor's new clothes.

One of the best ways to avoid animosity or misunderstandings in a discussion
is to let the other party know how what they said has been received, and to
ask them to either confirm it, or clarify it.

I denied having said those things you claim to have received from me,
but you ignored my response and went on believing that the Stooges
were telling the truth about what I said. Just like I had to go back
to
check on what you actually said before, you could have done the same
to verify I did not say those things.

So if this gets you upset for
some reason, then there's nothing I can do about that because I intend to
remain courteous no matter how you choose to conduct yourself.

Time will tell, one way or the other. That does not get me upset, what
ticks
me off is the way you hide behind a pretense of courteous behavior, or,
if
you really think you're being courteous, your lack of social grace.

2) You seem to be obsessed with the so-called "three stoges". I'm not sure
who you mean, and I really don't care. I come to no conclusions about what
you believe except for what you've posted to me and elsewhere in this NG. I
stress that it's based upon what YOU post. I give no credence whatsoever to
how anyone charachterizes what anyone else has to say about anyone else. My
imprtessions of you and what you've said are based soley on what you've
said, and I regard intimations that I've fallen hook, line and sinker for
what anyone else has said as a little rude. This disucssion is between us,
and I'll thank you to keep it that way.

If you give no credence to what others have said about my posts, why do

you use the words they used and not any of the ones I used? And why
did
you ignore my denial that I ever said those things?

Yes, it's rude, but that is only because while you may think using
"seems"
is a courtesy to me, I perceive it as rude on your part to hide your
belief
that the Stooges are telling the truth and that I am lying. I say to
all here
that I go tit for tat, never doing rudeness unless and until it is
done to me.
How can you be responding to what I said when I never said that which
"seems" to you that I said? When I replied to you that I did not say
those
things, I was not expecting an apology, but I was expecting at least
some
confirmation that you had determined I did not in fact say those
things.
Now here you say that you did not base your opinions on what others
said, but on what I have said to you. I have not said those things to
you,
and I'll thank you to refrain from accusing me of anything without any
support for your opinions.

I am not obsessed with the Stooges. Obviously it seems that way to
you,
but isn't that kinda cheeky of you to say that? I will let that go,
but know
now that attacks like that will not go unrequited.

3) I want to confirm what you've said about data. It seems that you've
said that you don't care what the data has to show. "I do not wish to
discuss whether or not the data about GPS shows the time dilation effect or
not, as I really don't care whether it does or not."

Good example of what I mean by support. You make a statement, and
next in the same paragraph you support that statement with quotes or
paraphrase of an easily viewed 'net source, or with reference to well -
known facts, generally accepted concepts and theories, or proposed
explanations of observed phenomena.

That seems very strange to me. Data is the ultimate arbiter about whether
or not our ideas and theories and conclusions about the physical world are
either right or wrong.

I agree, but you have given none of that evidence you talk about as
support for your claim that "much of it...defeats" my ideas. Give it
here as I describe support above, or just make a logical statement
specific to your claim and I will accept that if I cannot show it is in

some way fallacious.

To ignore data that validates those notions, or that
invalidates those notions seems contrary to the whole point of doing science
in the first place. Are you saying that your idea is correct no matter if
experiments prove you wrong?

Of course not. I took pains to explain to you why it does not matter
to
me about whether GPS accrues the time dilation effect or not. You
have ignored it or failed to understand what I said. It just happened
to
be the example being used to argue about the time dilation effect. No
one argued that the data shows no time dilation effects for GPS, and
everyone responded as if it has such effects. Worms opined
as how the time rates were seen by each observer as being slower for
the other due to symmetry. You said that "the data" shows there are no

such effects with GPS, and so if not, then GPS is not a suitable
example
with which to argue about such effects.

SNIP

There are no clocks in the universe other than those we have
made. I cannot tell what you mean by your statement above.

It's not helpful to go back to something I said a few posts ago and bring it
up after we've already proceeded further into the discussion. Anyway,
obviously I refer to the clocks we've made, and my statement refers to all
of those clocks.

I think otherwise. I only said that because your statements indicated
you
did not know that tests have shown that very same thing already. I.e.,

tests have shown that the time dilation effect happens - it's already a
fact.

It also seems as though you agree with my math which shows that
when these
clocks change direction in space as they orbit the Earth, they
are
changing
their absolute speed in the universe.

No, not so. There is no real direction in space except wrt
objects in space. Relativity tells us that. Therefore, abs.
speed is not a vector, so direction does not affect it.

Once again, we proceeded beyond this point already, and so to come back to
it now simply makes a coherent dialog more difficult than necessary.

Well, I may have misspoken, so I've explained myself more clearly below.

We are trying, I think, to smarten each other up here, and I see no
reason why
we cannot put up with the difficulties that creates. I will try to be
more diligent
in covering all aspect of the subject so as to avoid having to go back
to it.

SNIP

As I show above, I do not agree here.

It would've been helpful to say that when I first posted that comment.

Yes, I agree. I guess I'm just not that smart. Sorry.

SNIP

Please note that I am snipping some of what we have already
covered to make this post shorter. The length of my posts
may be one reason why they will not go through.

Your policy of siding with the Stooges idiotic statements is
a questionable one to me wrt to your ability to distinguish
between logical arguments. Why do you see some value
in the Stooge's arguments when none exists?

I never cited anything they said in order to support what I said.

That's true, you merely repeated what they said. You gave your
opinions about what they said with nary support for them.

Also,
your penchant to think of this discussion as "taking sides" seems to
indicate a bit of paranoia on your part. I refuse to state my assesment of
what others in this NG have said.

I am not asking for that. You have made it clear what your assessment
is of what others have said here. It is not paranoia if my suspicions
are
borne out, and it is clear to me that you have started out this
discussion
under misconceptions stemming from what others have posted here.

Why do you
use their tactics of unsupported opinion and hide behind
what you think is cloaked by your use of the term "seems"
if you truly believe in intellectual honesty? Why not come
out and say, "What is your answer to the Stooge's charge
that you should not be questioning accepted "facts" nor
should you be using plain and simple terms that only naked
emperors are allowed to use?

Let me make this abundantly clear. First of all, I regard it as a shame
that you seem to be taking this discussion down the same road of insulting
comments which all of your other discussions seem to be on.

Yes, it's a shame alright that you provoked me into responding to
you tit-for-tat. You started it, and I have shown much more restraint
so far here than I ever did to the inanities mouthed by the Stooges.
Stop acting like them and we won't go down that road. My policy is
one of non-escalation, but swift retribution when attacked.

You did not like my response to your snotty remarks about your
not wanting to think outside the physics world, so you protested
and tried to say my response was uncalled for. I tried to show
that it was indeed called for, but you don't have to agree with that,
and that settled you down. You are the one taking us down the
same road of insulting comments by provoking me the same way
the Stooges do. All those names I called them are the same ones
they first called me. You have yet to call me a name, so I have
not yet called you one, either. See how that works?

OTOH, the rules apply equally as well to both of us, and if I don't
agree with what you say, I have the right to call you on it. I have
done that a few times already, and now you are protesting that
you don't like my exercise of my right to question what you say.

I've already
said that I use the word *seem* in order to give you the benefit of the
doubt when I come to preliminary conclusions, and that I'm simply asking for
confirmation if my impressions of what you've said are correct. It's a
courtesy.

Believe that all you want, but keep your helmet on if you don't want
*** in your hair.

Secondly, let's explore what you mean by unsupported claims. I've seen YOU
make this claim to just about anyone with whom you disagree, and so I'd like
your definition of the word *unsupported* as YOU use it in these
discussions. What qualifies as support, and what does not qualify as
support?

Fine. Up above is my definition of what constitutes support. Note
that
it does not include hiding behind unobtainable or non-specific data or
citations. Find one post where I have without good reason demanded
support from anyone regarding any claims they have made that are not
anything more than their opinions. If they have any good reasons to
overthrow my arguments, they would have used them instead. The
more unsupported opinions they throw out, the more it shows they have
no reasonable arguments against my ideas.

not pursue them even though I believe you should not. That's up to
you. Therefore, please be advised that I'll simply ignore any such
opinions in the future because it's irrelevant to this discussion, and
to me. This is a discussion about an issue of science, and I will
limit my comments to that alone.

But you will argue about not the real issue, but a strawman
whom you think is relevant to this thread.

Ignored.

I guess that about wraps up this discussion then, as I have supported
my statement above as a valid response to false charges as to what I
have said, and you chose to ignore what I said. I got enough Stooges
already to contend with, I don't need anymore. 'bye.

.