Geocentrism: The Debates - Scott Reeves vs. MomoTheBellyDancer, Part 1

My Comments from the YouTube video “TYCHO BRAHE Says No Spheres NoParallax No Planets - All Lies” by jeranism

Scott Reeves wrote (responding to MomoTheBellyDancer's comments to Last Trump):

“That is not an assumption [that the Earth is revolving around the sun]. The fact that we can observe stellar aberration is already plenty of evidence. Another piece of evidence is the fact that Newtonian physics perfectly describe the motion of planets, including earth.”

We can also observe and explain stellar aberration from a geocentric frame. Stellar aberration doesn’t speak to whether Earth is revolving around the sun. 

As for Newtonian physics, choosing to make Newtonian calculations using a non-geocentric coordinate system does not mean that the Earth is actually revolving around the sun. It simply means that you've chosen to make Newtonian calculations using a coordinate system in which the Earth is revolving around the sun.

As for Newtonian physics perfectly describing said motion of the planets – they didn’t perfectly describe the precession of Mercury, did they? So thy DON’T “perfectly” describe the motion of the planets.

“No, because you have to introduce massive amounts of unknown variables to make the geocentric model work, which simply disappear then you go with the heliocentric model. Occam's razor compels us to go with the model with the least amount of assumptions.”

Occam’s razor is a philosophical preference for simplicity, not a physical law that governs the universe. The geocentric frame IS just as valid as any other frame, unless you want to deny Relativity. What you’re basically saying is that Occam’s razor compels us to conclude that all reference frames are not physically equivalent, in violation of Relativity.

Perhaps you might object that you were referring to the geocentric MODEL as being invalid, not the geocentric REFERENCE FRAME. But how can you acknowledge the geocentric reference frame yet deny the geocentric model that goes with it? If you’re going to allow someone to assume the role of an observer within the geocentric reference frame, then that observer MUST have a model that describes the universe from his geocentric viewpoint, and that model MUST be as valid as any other model. If that model is not fully developed by such an observer, it MUST be possible to fully develop it, or else Relativity is an invalid theory. And I'm assuming you are not an anti-relativist.

MomoTheBellyDancer wrote:

"Stellar aberration doesn’t speak to whether Earth is revolving around the sun."

Then explain how we could get stellar aberration that way.

"choosing to make Newtonian calculations using a non-geocentric coordinate system does not mean that the Earth is actually revolving around the sun."

Then present a model in which the Newtonian calculations are correct, but in which the earth does not orbit the sun. Make sure it is at least as comprehensive as the heliocentric model, with as few assumptions as possible.

"Occam’s razor is a philosophical preference for simplicity, not a physical law that governs the universe."

 Irrelevant. It states that we should choose the model that works fine with the least amount of assumptions. Really, why would we throw in a lot of assumptions when a simpler model explains the same facts just as well, if not better?

"The geocentric frame IS just as valid as any other frame, unless you want to deny Relativity."

In the geocentric model, the universe would be revolving the earth at several trillion times the speed of light.

"What you’re basically saying is that Occam’s razor compels us to conclude that all reference frames are not physically equivalent, in violation of Relativity. "

No, Occam's Razor compels us to conclude that they are equivalent. You're not using it correctly.

"Disclaimer: these comments should not be construed as support for Flat Earth or a denial of stellar parallax or of accepted standards for distances to the sun and stars." 

You could've fooled me.

Scott Reeves wrote:

“Then explain how we could get stellar aberration that way.”

The fact is that if you are a relativist and you believe that stellar aberration cannot be explained from within a geocentric reference frame, then you are actually an anti-relativist, because you do not believe that all reference frames are physically equivalent. If you ARE a relativist, then you MUST admit that stellar aberration can be explained from within a geocentric frame, even if you don't currently know what the explanation is. So I don't need to explain it, because neither true relativists nor absolute Geocentrists (this one, at least) disagree that stellar aberration is geocentrically explicable.

That being said, here is one of several explanations put forward by modern Geocentrists: "Stellar aberration is star motion centered on the sun as viewed from Earth, hence there is no aberration in stellar motion as seen from the sun. The aberration is due to the apparent shift in the stellar positions that are centered on the sun. This is a parallax effect due to the change in position of a reference point." - Robert Sungenis, Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right, Volume 1.

And anyway, to quote Stephen Hawking in The Grand Design: “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.”

Stellar aberration qualifies as one of the “observations of the heavens,” and can thus be explained by geocentrism, according to the man who is allegedly one of the greatest physicists of our time. Unless, of course, he meant to say all our observations except the aberration of light. Which could be possible, since he is incorrect that our observations can be explained by the Ptolemaic model. Modern geocentrists do not adhere to the Ptolemaic model, because we know it is inaccurate, as it has all the planets orbiting the Earth. But I’m sure Hawking meant a geocentric model, rather than the Ptolemaic model specifically.

“Then present a model in which the Newtonian calculations are correct, but in which the earth does not orbit the sun. Make sure it is at least as comprehensive as the heliocentric model, with as few assumptions as possible.”

I present to you: the geocentric model! Ta-da! Could be a relativistic geocentric model, or it could be an absolute Geocentric model. I’m not going to explain the details of the model because there’s probably not enough space in this comments section, and because frankly I as an absolute Geocentrist do not KNOW all the nuances of the absolute Geocentric model any more than relativists appear to know all the nuances of their own relativistic model As far as Newtonian calculations – as I pointed out, Newtonian calculations aren’t even correct in the model in which Earth DOES orbit the sun (precession of Mercury, for example). But I assume you mean that Newton's laws don’t allow for a greater mass like the sun to orbit a lesser mass like the Earth, and so the geocentric model doesn’t work with Newtonian calculations because of that. But the sun only appears to be orbiting the Earth in a geocentric reference frame; the sun is actually orbiting the center of mass of the universe, and the Earth happens to be located at that center. A system of masses orbits the center of mass of the system, according to Newton, and that is not violated in a geocentric model.

“Irrelevant. It states tat we should choose the model that works fine with the least amount of assumptions. Really, why would we throw in a lot of assumptions when a simpler model explains the same facts just as well, if not better?”

To what assumptions are you referring? And as far as choosing a simpler model, simpler does not necessarily mean correct. If your allegedly simpler model is too simple to accommodate a complex universe, then the simpler model is not preferable because it doesn't represent reality.

“In the geocentric model, the universe would be revolving the earth at several trillion times the speed of light.”

This argument is often presented against geocentrism, but it is not valid. Einstein, Dialogue About Objections Against the Theory of Relativity: “The situation, that the fixed stars are circling with tremendous velocities, when one bases an examination on such a coordinate system, does not constitute an argument against the admissibility, but merely against the efficiency of this choice of coordinates…” See, Einstein was actually a geocentrist, as all relativists are. We're ALL geocentrists; the only difference between us is whether we claim that all reference frames are physically equivalent.

Phil Plait, Seriously? Geocentrism?: “Things actually can move faster than light relative to the coordinate system, it’s just that things cannot move past each other with a relative speed greater than light. In the weird geocentric frame where the Universe revolves around the Earth, that is self-consistent. In other words, the Neptune-moving-too-quickly argument sounds good, but in reality it doesn’t work, and we shouldn’t use it.”

I’m a quote miner. Should I continue throwing out similar quotes, or are those two sources reputable enough?

“No, Occam's Razor compels us to conclude that they are equivalent. You're not using it correctly.”

So now Occam’s Razor, as well as Relativity, compels us to conclude that the geocentric frame IS equivalent to the heliocentric?

“You could've fooled me.”

Only if you believe that Flat Earth and geocentrism are not completely separate and unconnected theories (and I can understand why you might have that impression, since a lot of flat Earthers seem to be trying desperately to connect the two), and that stellar parallax and accepted standards for distances to the sun and stars can’t be explained from within a geocentric reference frame.

MomoTheBellyDancer wrote:

"Robert Sungenis, Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right, Volume 1."

Not a peer-reviewed work. Dismissed.

“Stephen Hawking in The Grand Design"

Not a peer-reviewed work. Dismissed.

"the sun is actually orbiting the center of mass of the universe, and the Earth happens to be located at that center."

With would mean that the earth would be at the bottom of an immense gravity well i.e. a black hole. This is not what we observe. Dismissed.

"To what assumptions are you referring?"

What would cause the retrograde motions of planets in the geocentric model? Oh right, you will have to make the planets go loop-de-loop around some unexplained center.

OR you could put the sun be the center of the solar system.

Geocentric model -> dismissed.

"simpler does not necessarily mean correct."

Whether  model is correct is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether it explains all observations with the least amount of assumptions.

"If your allegedly simpler model is too simple to accommodate a complex universe"

Then it wouldn't explain all observations, so your objection is silly.

"The situation, that the fixed stars are circling with tremendous velocities, when one bases an examination on such a coordinate system, does not constitute an argument against the admissibility, but merely against the efficiency of this choice of coordinates"

And later he says, "For the decision which representation to choose only reasons of efficiency are decisive, not arguments of a principle kind."

This is still a strike against geocentrism. Besides, it's not a peer-reviewed article, so it's dismissed anyway

"Einstein was actually a geocentrist"

Don't be stupid.

"Phil Plait, Seriously? Geocentrism?"

Not a peer-reviewed work. Dismissed.

"I’m a quote miner."

That's not something to be proud of.

"So now Occam’s Razor, as well as Relativity, compels us to conclude that the geocentric frame IS equivalent to the heliocentric?"

Point me to a peer-reviewed work that posits this, and then we'll talk.

Scott Reeves wrote:

“With would mean that the earth would be at the bottom of an immense gravity well i.e. a black hole. This is not what we observe. Dismissed.”

Really? Google ‘Are we inside a black hole’ and see how many articles come up about how scientists on your side are proposing that we are inside a black hole.

“What would cause the retrograde motions of planets in the geocentric model? Oh right, you will have to make the planets go loop-de-loop around some unexplained center.”

What causes it? The planets orbiting the sun, even as the universe as a whole revolves around the universal barycenter. There’s nothing inexplicable about retrograde motion. It’s a combination of gravity and the rotation of the universe. What causes the retrograde motion in the relativistic geocentric model? 

“OR you could put the sun be the center of the solar system.”

You could, but for Relativity to be a valid theory, you also have to be able to put the Earth at the center. If you’re going to advocate for Relativity, then you can’t deny the geocentric reference frame.

“Whether  model is correct is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether it explains all observations with the least amount of assumptions.”

How does the heliocentric model explain the fact that neither Newton nor Relativity can explain why galaxies are spinning faster than they should according to either theory, yet the galaxies don’t fly apart? Neither theory explains it. They assume the existence of dark matter and dark energy, neither of which has been observed to date. So none of the models you are advocating explain all observations. 

“Then it wouldn't explain all observations, so your objection is silly.”

And as I noted above, your allegedly simpler model does not explain all observations so your objection to my objection is equally silly. Hypothesizing the existence of an unobserved entity to explain disagreements between your theory and observation is actually no explanation at all.

“This is still a strike against geocentrism. Besides, it's not a peer-reviewed article, so it's dismissed anyway.”

It’s only a strike against geocentrism if you believe that Occam’s Razor is infallible and utterly applicable to every situation imaginable. Einstein does not say that it’s impossible for the universe to rotate around the Earth at several trillion times the speed of light, which is what your previous statement implied. 

Dismissing highly reputable scientists who disagree with your statement regarding geocentrism being forbidden due to some faster-than-light problem simply because they're not peer-reviewed statements does not change the fact that highly reputable scientists are contradicting you. 

Plus, one of those contradictory voices is Einstein himself, and he’s got to be the most peer-reviewed person I could possibly quote. Everything he has written has been intensely scrutinized for a hundred years. Point me to a peer-reviewed article that says the statement I quoted is not accurate, or that the geocentric reference frame is not valid within relativity.

“Don't be stupid.”

I’m not being stupid. Are you saying that Einstein was NOT a geocentrist? A geocentrist from a relativistic perspective is simply someone who assumes the viewpoint of an observer within an Earth-centered frame. All relativists have to allow for the possibility of assuming such a viewpoint. Therefore, all relativists are inherently geocentrists. The difference between relativistic geocentrists and absolute Geocentrists is that relativistic geocentrists claim that the geocentric reference frame is simply one of a multitude of equal of physically equivalent reference frames. If you claim to be a relativist and deny the geocentric reference frame as being equally valid, then you are not actually a relativist.

“That's not something to be proud of.”

And yet I am.

“Point me to a peer-reviewed work that posits this, and then we'll talk.”

I wasn’t positing this. In your earlier comments, you first said that Occam’s Razor compelled us to reject geocentrism, and then later said that Occam’s Razor compelled us to conclude that all reference frames were physically equivalent. I was merely questioning your apparent inconsistency.

Scott Reeves wrote:

“I knew you'd mention this.”

You, sir, are a true seer.

“But of course, it's nonsense (as most anything else you say). Yes, the whole universe could be inside of a black hole (or equivalent), but that's not the same as the earth being in a gravitational well with the rest of the universe rotating around it.”

Fine. The geocentric reference frame is invalid because otherwise we would all be crushed to death in the singularity of a black hole. And yet we’re alive in a geocentric reference frame. Go figure. So I guess something must be wrong with the theory of black holes as currently formulated. Or something wrong with your assertion that Earth being in a gravitational well with the rest of the universe rotating around it would mean that we are inside a black hole. Because it certainly can't mean that a geocentric reference frame is invalid, because that would mean relativity is invalid.

“The fact that all planets go around the sun in elliptic orbits.”

Which is what they do in a geocentric model as well. All planets except Earth, that is. Unless you’re going with some old school Ptolemaic model to which the majority of modern absolute Geocentrists no longer adhere. The way the planets are observed to move against the celestial sphere does not mean that geocentrists must claim the planets do not orbit the sun in elliptic orbits, any more than it means such a thing for heliocentrists.

Geocentric model not dismissed.

“Nonsense.”

Then you don’t quite understand relativity.

“Citation needed.”

Citation needed for what? The question where I asked for your explanation, my assertion within the question that galaxies are spinning faster than they should according to either theory, or my assertion that neither relativity nor Newtonian dynamics can explain that faster spin?

If you’re asking for citation on the question itself, I don’t need to cite anything to ask you a question. If you’re asking for citation about the question’s assertion that galaxies are rotating faster than they should be according to current theories, it’s standard knowledge and really shouldn’t need any citation. But if you want citations, go to the wikipedia entry on ‘galaxy rotation curve’ and browse through the articles in the footnotes. I’m confident that one of them supports me. As for whether Relativity or Newton’s laws can explain this rotation problem, the hypothesis put forth as an explanation is dark matter. But a hypothesis that has not been tested is not a valid explanation. And no, saying that the galaxy rotation problem is both the test for and evidence of dark matter is not an explanation either. It is circular reasoning.

The fact that the concept of dark matter exists and is widely accepted by the mainstream scientific community is all the citation I need to back up what I said in my earlier comment. And if you dispute that the concept of dark matter exists and is widely accepted by the mainstream scientific community, then all I can say is, “Have you been living under a rock for the past few decades?”

"Citation needed" [to my comment that ‘your allegedly simpler model does not explain all observations’]

Dark matter.

“Please explain why, given the choice between two models that explain observations equally well, we should ever have a reason to choose the model with the most assumptions.”

Possibly we wouldn’t ever have such a reason, but I can’t really address this unless you give me a list of the assumptions of both models which show that one model has more assumptions than the other. And the list for each has to contain only assumptions that are not special pleadings favoring one model over the other, or that are not themselves assumptions that the opposing model is correct.

“No, he doesn't. Einstein merely points out that this motion in and of itself it not impossible in principle, but that it is still impossible in practice, since nothing can move at trillions the times the speeds of light. Try to read for comprehension. Better yet, try to read the original German.”

Yes, he does. And he doesn’t say it’s impossible in practice. He says it’s inefficient in practice to use a coordinate system based upon such a reference frame, but that the tremendous speed of the circling stars is not a problem when you examine the geocentric coordinate system. And he’s right. Unless you’re some huge fan of mathematics who enjoys a challenge, then using a simpler coordinate system would be more efficient because it wouldn’t take as much time and you’d have less chance for error creeping in. But mathematical inefficiency does not render a reference frame invalid. As for the original German, does the German concept of ‘impossible’ translate to the English word ‘inefficient’? I don’t know, but I’m going to assume no. Besides, Einstein is not the only one who talks about the speed of light not being a problem for a geocentric frame. I mentioned Phil Plait for one, but there are plenty of others. The whole faster-than-c problem that’s bandied about by CoolHardLogic and others is actually no problem at all. It’s only a demonstration that those people have not actually dug deeply enough into the geocentric issue, and don’t know what they’re talking about.

“Einstein doesn't disagree with my statement. You're quoting him out of context.”

Actually he does, and no I’m not. He is actually defending the validity of the geocentric reference frame, because he understands that if the geocentric reference frame can be shown to be invalid in any way, then so is relativity, since ALL reference frames must be equally valid for his theory to be valid.

“His articles are peer-reviewed, not his person.”

Yes, but his peer-reviewed articles are so thoroughly peer-reviewed, verified and accepted by the scientific community that it’s pretty safe to assume that something he says regarding relativity outside a peer-reviewed article is most likely correct. Anyway, I do not subscribe to relativity, so I really don’t care whether Einstein is correct or not. As an anti-relativist, I hold that he most certainly is NOT correct. My only reason for mentioning him and other relativists is to get anti-geocentrists such as yourself to realize that relativity MUST accept the validity of a geocentric reference frame. People who understand relativity realize that the geocentric frame is valid, which is why you get people like Einstein and Hawking defending it. It’s merely one equal reference frame among a multitude of reference frames, according to them. If you can’t accept that, then we haven’t even actually gotten to the point yet of debating whether the geocentric reference frame is relative or absolute. Not to mention that if you can’t accept any sort of geocentric reference frame, then you are both an anti-relativist and an anti-absolutist, and since relativity and ‘absolutivity’ are the only possibilities, rejection of both means that you are going entirely against reason and logic.

“If you claim he was, then I will need a citation. Something along the lines of Einstein saying ‘I believe the earth is unmovable in the center of the universe’ will do.”

To the best of my knowledge, he never made such a direct and comprehensive statement, and even if he had, he would not have made it unconditionally. If he made such a statement unconditionally, he would be claiming to be an absolute Geocentrist, which I acknowledge he never did. He only espoused a democracy of reference frames and defended a geocentric frame specifically, making him implicitly and logically a geocentrist. But only relatively. He was also a Mars-centrist, a heliocentrist, a Moon-centrist, a Tatooine-centrist, a point-in-deep-space-centrist, etc. Whatever sort of observer the situation called for, he was it. For a relativist, any point in the universe can be chosen as the center of a relatively immobile reference frame. It is modern scientists who add fuel to relativity’s funeral pyre by claiming that we are at the center of our observable universe.

“And that's why you're stupid.”

That’s fine. I don’t think you’re stupid. But also, thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments. I appreciate the opportunity to be challenged and forced to defend my position. Seriously.

“There is no inconsistency.”

There was, even if it was unintentional. But I’ll just put it down to miscommunication on your part, and you can put it down to misunderstanding or downright stupidity on my part.

MomotheBellyDancer wrote:

"And yet we’re alive in a geocentric reference frame."

I am not saying that you can't have a geocentric reference frame. I am saying that the earth is not at the center of the universe with he univere orbiting around it. For that, the vast majority of the universe would have to break the speed of light limit.

We'd also be dead.

"Which is what they do in a geocentric model as well. All planets except Earth, that is."

If all planets except for the earth wold orbiting the sun, then we'd seem them move in completely different patterns across the sky. The patterns we do see though match with all planets orbiting the sun, including the earth.

"Citation needed for what?"

Your assertion that "neither Newton nor Relativity can explain why galaxies are spinning faster than they should according to either theory."

"it’s standard knowledge"

No, it's not.

"really shouldn’t need any citation"

It does, so get to it.

"the hypothesis put forth as an explanation is dark matter."

Dark matter has nothing to do with the claim that the "galaxies should fall part due to their rotation." Really, where do you get this stupid idea?

"Dark matter"

Dark Matter falls perfectly within Newtonian mechanics. It's because of that fact that we can detect its presence, since it has a definitive gravitational influence on surrounding matter.

"Possibly we wouldn’t ever have such a reason"

Good.

"And he’s right."

No, you are making him right by misrepresenting his position. As long as you keep doing that, I will ignore the rest of your blather, since it's nothing but a dishonest move anyway.

"To the best of my knowledge, he never made such a direct and comprehensive statement"
There you go.

"That’s fine. I don’t think you’re stupid."

Well, I am not the one doing the quote-mining.

"There was, even if it was unintentional."

You failed to point out any inconsistency. It's you who has no idea what a reference frame really is.

Scott Reeves wrote:

“I am not saying that you can't have a geocentric reference frame.”

At last, forward movement.

“I am saying that the earth is not at the center of the universe with he univere orbiting around it.”

Fair enough. But you do realize that the majority of modern scientists claim that Earth is at the center of our observable universe?

“For that, the vast majority of the universe would have to break the speed of light limit.”

No it wouldn’t, not according to Einstein and many others. We’ve already been over this. But if you fail to accept that, we can agree to disagree. 

“We'd also be dead.”

And yet we’re not.

“If all planets except for the earth wold orbiting the sun, then we'd seem them move in completely different patterns across the sky.”

Citation needed. 

"The patterns we do see though match with all planets orbiting the sun, including the earth."

Correct. If you assume the role of an observer in a heliocentric reference frame.

"No, it's not."

Yes, it is.

“Dark matter has nothing to do with the claim that the "galaxies should fall part due to their rotation." Really, where do you get this stupid idea?”

I bought it at the Stupid Idea Store. It was on sale for a dollar. Do you think I paid too much? Anyway. Fine. Forget the part about galaxies falling apart due to rotating too fast. Assume I was in error regarding the falling apart aspect. I misspoke. I was being completely stupid and totally in error about the galaxies falling apart. I completely miscommunicated what I meant to say. Still does not change the fact that the observed rotation speeds of galaxies measured over a large range from their centers to their outer edges do not fit theoretical predictions, and the explanation put forward for the discrepancy between theory and observation is dark matter. Look up ‘galaxy rotation curve’ on wikipedia. Plenty of citations at the bottom. But I know, wikipedia is a poor source of information, right? Still doesn’t change the fact that observation does not fit fact regarding galaxy rotation, and the explanation put forward is dark matter. So dark matter actually has everything to do with galaxy rotation, if not with galaxies falling apart due to rotation.

“Your assertion that 'neither Newton nor Relativity can explain why galaxies are spinning faster than they should according to either theory.'" [in response to ‘citation needed for what?’]

Fine. They can explain it. But their explanation is to hypothesize the existence of a form of matter that has only been detected through a discrepancy between theoretical prediction and empirical observation. Dark matter is an ad hoc explanation.

In that spirit, I hereby explain why we are inside a black hole and yet are not crushed to death. The universe is permeated by some sort of physical force or matter that prevents everything from being crushed inside our black hole universe. SOMETHING exists that makes our geocentric, black hole universe habitable. That something MUST exist, because we’re here and my theory (for the purposes of this sentence) doesn’t work without it. There. If such ad-hoc explanations as dark matter are permissible, then mine is too. X explains how we can live inside a black hole, and X is whatever it needs to be. Matter, energy, a pink elephant, whatever it needs to be. No theory need ever be wrong again. X can always plug the hole. 

“Dark Matter falls perfectly within Newtonian mechanics.”

Citation needed.

Dark matter MIGHT fall perfectly within Newtonian mechanics if we knew what it was. But since it’s never actually been detected other than discrepancy between theory and observation, we have no idea what dark matter and dark energy actually are. It hasn’t even yet been determined whether we are detecting the presence of dark matter, or whether we are detecting the presence of errors in standard theories. Right now, the best that can be said about dark matter is that it MUST exist IF standard cosmological theories are valid. But that doesn’t mean it DOES exist. It could just mean that standard theories don’t work. 

“It's because of that fact that we can detect its presence, since it has a definitive gravitational influence on surrounding matter.”

It’s not a fact that we can detect its presence. It is only a fact that we can detect a discrepancy between theoretical prediction and empirical observation, and dark matter is generally regarded as the culprit.

“Good.” 

That’s your response to my statement ‘Possibly we wouldn’t have such a reason.’ But I made that statement with a huge qualification which you are not addressing. 

“No, you are making him right by misrepresenting his position. As long as you keep doing that, I will ignore the rest of your blather, since it's nothing but a dishonest move anyway.”

Dude, you misunderstanding his position is not the same thing as me misrepresenting it. Go ahead and ignore my blather; even IF I am wrong, there’s nothing dishonest about it. It’s a genuine and honest misunderstanding of Einstein’s position. But I’m not wrong.

“There you go.”

I made a highly qualified concession, but you’re taking it as an unqualified concession. So you’re following through on your vow to ignore my alleged blather, but only after you pick out a portion that misrepresents my true position. Now who is being dishonest and misrepresentative?

“Well, I am not the one doing the quote-mining.”

Neither am I. At the beginning of our discussion, I facetiously labeled myself as a quote-miner. But absolutely no quote I’ve used in this discussion has been taken out of context or misinterpreted.

If I cite a source but don't offer a quote from the source, you'll demand that I point to a particular section that supports my position. If I then offer a quote from the source but it supports my position, you'll accuse me of being a quote-miner and taking the quote out of context and demand that I give a larger quote to offer a larger clue to the context. But with the quotes I HAVE offered, no matter how much I expand the quote, it won't alter the quote's support for my position, since I'm not taking it out of context.

“You failed to point out any inconsistency.”

Fine. Whether there was or was not an inconsistency is not important to me, so for the purposes of this discussion, there was no inconsistency. 

“It's you who has no idea what a reference frame really is.”

Is not. 

[no further responses as yet]

NOTE: when I say "no further responses as yet" in these debates, I probably should add "as far as I know." I'm only aware of responses that show up in my Google+ notifications, so if someone doesn't actually reply to one of my posts, but instead just posts a reply to the comments thread as a whole, it won't show up in my notifications. So "as far as I know" is the caveat regarding no further responses.