"But you wouldn't be informed enough to vet it, by your admission." - where is this admission?icarus wrote:betruge:
But you wouldn't be informed enough to vet it, by your admission. To wit, you've been avoiding answering my first question for the last week. I don't mind that really, its the personal abuse and snideness that gets me.Then let's hear it. How would you rule out the M-E conjecture so definitively? It would certainly save everyone time and undue attention. By your own argument you would have an opportunity to steer the experimenters towards a quicker end to what you pretend is travesty. How is M-E so undoubtedly wrong that it doesn't warrant any experimental work to either substantiate or eliminate it?
I wouldn't want to prick your bubble of ignorance and fantasy unnecessarily, and its been made plain that you like it inside the bubble so I'll leave you to it. I've probably left enough behind to settle the question anyway, if you follow it through honestly and rigorously. Enough said.
Mach's principle is an elegant idea though and the true (electromagnetic?) nature of inertia is an age old question worth pursuing, I've never said otherwise, as much as others have tried to put words into my mouth (to the extent of fabricating quotes wth!?). There is something there, this is not it though.
FWIW, I was reading Woodward's "Killing Time" 13 years ago, not long after it was put up online.
I never got past the fundamental stage of our argument because I thought and still think that it's flawed at that early point already.
You insist that I made some pretention or other about M-E. When I never did. It's not hard to see why I'd be suspicious of your objectivity. Even less when you haven't shown any reason for M-E being undoubtedly wrong. Never mind when you consider your pattern here of doing what you accuse others of: failing to have the "dignity" you preach - of leaving this thread to M-E debate and taking your interpersonal politics to a separate thread, of putting words in others mouths - I never argued anything about M-E and yet you're all over the place with assertions that everyone but you has some pathological bent for fantastical theories and clings to their bubble of ignorance, yadda yadda -- And yet no refutal of 93143 or MSimon's arguments other than high horse deflections; another instance of projection.
On top of that I'm actually just disinterested in it. My only satisfaction is seeing good debate here. As crazy as that might be to you. If you can't even entertain the idea that the above is true, that as someone who obviously has an axe to grind contrary to good debate you produce zero motivation for me to debate anything at all about M-E, then no, there's nothing to say. In fact - again note the irony here - why did you even speak up in the first place? You had nothing to contribute except how lowly is everyone merely entertaining the prospects and pros and cons of M-E conjecture. Why then would I care about proving myself in your eyes? Do I get an Icarus certificate of approval? Is there some benefit to trading my diplomas and work experience in for it?
And the trigger to all this was me pointing people to what the conjecture is. Which is the only reason I'm not just ignoring your posts. It just blows my mind that someone might pretend that helping put everyone on the same page about WHAT THE CONJECTURE IS regardless if it's right or wrong, so as to fuel healthy debate either way, is tantamount to supporting that conjecture. That it MUST mean that they have not the slightest understanding of physics. Being the science and puzzles geek that I am, I can't help but giggle.