David Cooper wrote: ↑September 19th, 2018, 9:34 pm
Burning ghost wrote: ↑September 18th, 2018, 10:23 pm
I’d recommend pursuing this in a physics forum.
I've tried, but they don't like it on physics forums - they try to shut down any such discussion in any way they can, and that means delete, delete, ban.
I actually see what you're up against over there at Naked Science. I butted into the tide-bulge thingy, and you demonstrate pretty thoroughly that their centrifugal idea cannot explain every case. People are as resistant to being told they're wrong over there as they are here.
You on the other hand are telling the adherents of some position with which you disagree what them must believe, and then that our theory is wrong. That is classic strawman, which you repeatedly deny. You just don't see it. You refuse to hear corrections when they're pointed out. You alter a valid view by mixing in assertions that the view does not make, and then find the combinations contradictory, which they are. At no point is the position actually proposed proved inconsistent, because you never consider it.
The bit about the conspiracyOfLight having errors seemed to surprise you. I found the errors effortlessly by just looking at the places where relativity was claimed to predict something else. In each case, it is misrepresented, and you're doing the same thing.
If I find I am getting inconsistent answers from relativity, I assume the problem is me, not relativity.
Even you said that LET makes all the same predictions, so relativity cannot be wrong without LET also being wrong.
So the conflict seems to be about the metaphysical differences between the LET model (preferred frame), your model (preferred moment), and the typical Einstein interpretation with no preferred anything.
And as Steve points out, this conflict is exacerbated by your refusal to use even the most simple terms the way physics defines them. I know you're not this uneducated. The misuse of terms seems deliberately deceptive, like you're a used car salesman or something. If you want to debunk Einstein's version of relativity, speak the language of that thing and drive it to self inconsistency, not inconsistency with a religion that redefines all the terms.
I don't see you using this sort of deception in the moon thread because you have the advantage of being right. You do however go on a similar tantrum about them all not dropping at your feet with the superior argument. The top of the most recent post implied you're a genius among fools, which makes it really hard for the causal reader to be able to tell the difference.