Discussion: Lorentz invariance of certain zero angles

[Tach]

You're taking the piss right?

Now, I have had the solution for about two weeks now and I am wondering why Pete has suddenly dropped out from the debate.

 

[Trippy]

I am wondering why Pete has suddenly dropped out from the debate.

Yes, I'm almost certain you are.

 

[James R]

There has now been a gap of 1 month in this debate. Here are the pre-agreed rules:

If Stage 3 is completed, or the discussion stalls at any time, Tach and Pete will prepare single independent summary posts, describing our impression of how the discussion went, the conclusions we reached, and what we learned. When we both indicate readiness, the two summaries will be posted at around the same time. Following the summary posts, the Debate thread will be closed.

It seems to me that the discussion has stalled.

Formal Debates on sciforums are not open-ended. There must be a way to end the debate.

I will allow 1 week for the debaters to produce summary posts as agreed. Then the Debate thread will be closed.

 

[Tach]

There has now been a gap of 1 month in this debate. Here are the pre-agreed rules:



It seems to me that the discussion has stalled.

The discussion hasn't stalled, I have had the solution ready as per debate rules for more than a month, Pete has abandoned the thread. As per the rules of the debate, we were supposed to present the solutions simultaneously , since Pete abandoned the debate this is no longer possible.

 

[Pete]

Hasn't stalled yet, nor have I abandoned the thread.
Life has intervened in various ways, but I see light at the end of the tunnel.
We'll be up an running again in a week or two.

 

[Tach]

Hasn't stalled yet, nor have I abandoned the thread.
Life has intervened in various ways, but I see light at the end of the tunnel.
We'll be up an running again in a week or two.

Excellent, looking forward for your solution.

 

[James R]

Ok, but a month and a half is a long gap.

 

[Pete]

Tach, I've updated the tracking list (post 121). Let me know if there's anything wrong in it.

 

[Pete]

I should perhaps point out that I made an actual debate post as well, just before the tracking post.

 

[Pete]

Tach, we agreed to rules in this debate.
You aren't following them.
Why not?

The particular rules you seem to be forgetting are:

• Both Tach and Pete must remain polite, and discuss the topic in a spirit of mutual discovery.
• All direct questions must be responded to in the next post.
• Posts may not be edited except:
  • Within 5 minutes of posting
  • For typographical errors only
  Or:
  • If permission is given by the other person by PM or the Discussion thread.

...

• Each Debate post must have a heading in bold stating the specific issue addressed by that post.

...
Stage 3 - calculations
...

• We will then discuss any discrepancies (one at a time) between the analyses, using sufficient mathematical rigor to resolve them.

 

[Tach]

Tach, we agreed to rules in this debate.
You aren't following them.
Why not?

The particular rules you seem to be forgetting are:

Err, you took 5 weeks to answer.
You use a patronizing tone?
You don't answer a direct question?

Just to name a few. So, what standing do you have to claim that I am the one not following the rules when you break them with impunity?

 

[Pete]

Err, you took 5 weeks to answer.

Yes.

You use a patronizing tone?

I don't mean to. I'm sorry if it comes across that way.

You don't answer a direct question?

That is against the rules. Please point out where I did so, and I will respond at once.

Just to name a few. So, what standing do you have to claim that I am the one not following the rules when you break them with impunity?

It is not OK for either of us to break the rules.
If you have a problem with something I do that is against the rules, please point it out.
I will do the same.

 

[Pete]

Please look at the web document, I inserted all the explanations necessary (the equations stayed the same).

Please post your explanations to the thread.

 

[Tach]

Yes.

...and I did not complain that you are breaking the rules, quite the opposite, I waited patiently for you to finish your derivation.

I don't mean to. I'm sorry if it comes across that way.

This is not the first time, please stop it, for good. If we are to have a dialogue, you need to show respect.

That is against the rules. Please point out where I did so, and I will respond at once.

I pointed out to you that your solution fails at subrelativistic speeds, see the reference to Rindler. I asked you (twice) to respond.

It is not OK for either of us to break the rules.
If you have a problem with something I do that is against the rules, please point it out.
I will do the same.

Then please stop your complaints about my breaking rules.

 

[Tach]

Please post your explanations to the thread.

There is nothing in the rules that requires that, I prefer to keep all the derivations in one place.

 

[Pete]

No, see Moller, page 47.

Or, you could just explain your understanding directly.
Do you understand the equation you used?

Don't patronize me. You took 5 weeks to write up an incorrect solution, I don't need your patronizing tone.

This is an administrative/rules issue, and shouldn't be in the debate thread.
My fault. I am sorry. My post wasn't appropriate.

Can I ask you to please present your arguments directly, rather than referring to an offsite source?
If not, then why not?

No, please answer my question, I raised the issue with your solution, according to the rules you should answer it in the very next post, so please address it.

What question?

Did you check the Rindler reference I gave you?

I noted that in the tracking list as an issue to be addressed.
As we agreed in the proposal, we're dealing with one issue at a time.

I haven't checked Rindler yet. I may not have access.
What edition of Rindler are you using?
Are you able to quote or summarize the relevant material?

 

[Pete]

...and I did not complain that you are breaking the rules, quite the opposite, I waited patiently for you to finish your derivation

Thanks for your patience, but the rules we agreed on explicitly say there is no time limit.

This is not the first time, please stop it, for good. If we are to have a dialogue, you need to show respect.

I agree that we both need to show respect.

I pointed out to you that your solution fails at subrelativistic speeds, see the reference to Rindler. I asked you (twice) to respond.

And I will. One issue at a time.

If you ask a direct question, it will be answered in the next post.
If you raise several issues in a post, they will be addressed one at a time.

Then please stop your complaints about my breaking rules.

I will complain if you break the rules.
And I expect you to complain if I break the rules.

 

[Pete]

There is nothing in the rules that requires that, I prefer to keep all the derivations in one place.

[thread=111135]Proposal thread[/thread]

Stage 3 - calculations
...

• The analyses should be posted directly in the thread if at all possible. If either poster needs to use an off-site document, they should ask first and explain why.

 

[Tach]

Can I ask you to please present your arguments directly, rather than referring to an offsite source?

The arguments have been posted directly, it is the the bulk document that is kept as a complete paper (because it makes sense to have everything in one place, at least to me).

I noted that in the tracking list as an issue to be addressed.

This is not good enough, I noted this flaw immediately, even if it weren't fatal (it is) , you should have addressed it in the very next post.

As we agreed in the proposal, we're dealing with one issue at a time.

Good, this was the first issue flagged, let's deal with it.

I haven't checked Rindler yet. I may not have access.
What edition of Rindler are you using?

2006.

Are you able to quote or summarize the relevant material?

I already did.

 

[Pete]

This is not good enough, I noted this flaw immediately, even if it weren't fatal (it is) , you should have addressed it in the very next post.

Good, this was the first issue flagged, let's deal with it.

I disagree. We've already started discussing the vector transformation issue, I think we should finish that issue first.
I'll message the mods for a ruling.

In the meantime, I've twice asked you a direct question you haven't answered. I will ask it again in my next post to the debate thread. Please answer it.