…and you forgot to answer my question:
How many meter sticks, laid end to end, is the distance of 42 light years?
Motor Daddy, you are so full of shit that I suggest keeping your eyes shut at all times, because if you open them, the crap will come squirting out of your pupils! 
Oooooopsie, You forgot to answer the questions, but instead replied with insults. You know what that means, right? It means you are DEFEATED!
Yes, I know, Motor Daddy, make a total fool of yourself online, parade your ignorance with blustering bravado, and then when people stop indulging your moronic assertions simply declare victory!
Motor Daddy, ARE YOU GOING TO READ THE LINK? Because if not, you are DEFEATED! 
Of course, once you read the link, you are also DEFEATED, because it shows you are wrong!
No, I’m not going to waste more time reading about some BS theory that I’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false.
Do you spend all your time reading about other theories that you know are false?
Why would I want to waste my zero velocity time (LOL) on more Einstein Fudge?
“Once a Fudger always a Fudger.” LOL
OK, Motor Daddy! Buh-bye!
Bye! Hopefully you buy a new clock! LOL
…and get a new ruler too.
Just for the record, which of you is the irresistible force and which is the immovable object?
Note to phyllo:
Have a tally of their fallacies and mistakes in logic yet? 
It’s really quite simple.
I have reported and explained accurate, up to date science with no fallacies and no mistakes in logic.
Motor Daddy has done the opposite.
Big difference.
Nonsense! That’s what I think of it, total nonsense!
An infinite room hotel would be larger than the universe, even if the rooms were infinitesimally small. 
Infinity is not a number. Infinity is the concept of continuation. So saying “a fully occupied hotel with infinite rooms” is total nonsense. Infinite rooms means there is no number of rooms. Claiming they are all full means there are no number of people occupying said rooms.
It’s a total mess of nonsense. Just word play with the concept of “continuation.”
It’s not even theoretically possible to have a hotel with “infinite rooms.” That means the hotel has no borders, which far exceeds the borders of the universe. It’s just a big mess of nonsense.
Thing about sr and gr is that it spawned a philosophical movement that contradicts itself…
Everything is correct and all interpretations are correct (from the point of view of the observer)
So… if I say I’m right, I’m right, and if you say I’m wrong, you’re right.
This is a HUGE theme in ILP.
We have physics relativism, social relativism, linguistic relativism and cognitive relativism.
You’ve spread BS, that’s all you’ve done.
When asked how many meter sticks laid end to end is 42 light years, you tucked your tail between your legs, turned around, and walked the other way, and pretended that you didn’t hear the question.
I’ll make it more simple for you:
How many meter sticks, laid end to end, is it for a distance of 1 light second? Can you answer that question, or does it baffle your little mind?
The gravity of light speed warps space-time at critical mass. None of this applies.
I actually don’t believe in gr or sr in terms of the core fundamental explanations. It’s easy to poke holes in both.
It’s not an explanation if they do not understand it. The purpose of an explanation is to make things clear to someone. If it doesn’t make things clear to that intended someone, it’s not an explanation. At best, it’s an attempt at explanation. The point I’m making is that it’s the other person (the explainee) – not you (the explainer) – who gets to decide whether or not what you provided is an explanation. If the other person doesn’t get it, it’s NOT an explanation. If they say “You didn’t explain anything!”, you better believe them. Perhaps you tried but you clearly didn’t succeed at it. And your job as an explaner is to do whatever is necessary to help the other person understand your point. You set that goal for yourself, didn’t you? You decided to explain something to someone. It’s your responsibility. If you realize there’s nothing that can change the other person’s mind (which I believe is rarely, if ever, the case) or that it’s not worth your time to do what is necessary to change their mind (which I can accept to be frequently the case), you are expected to give up and go do something else. If you find it difficult to obey that law, you can always ask a mod to help you with it. But of course, you don’t have to. Some mods, bieng kind, will help you even though you never asked for help.
Alright. How exactly?
Right. And when someone calls you “stupid”, they are not insulting you, they are merely observing that you are stupid.
Your intentions aren’t particularly relevant. The consequences of your actions, however, are. You are supposed to discuss the subject of the debate. The subject of this debate isn’t “Is Magnus Anderson confused?” That’s a different subject, one that has nothing to do with the current one, which makes it a diversion. When you introduce a new subject to the discussion, your mind gets split and your performance becomes suboptimal. Suddenly, you’re discussing two subjects at the same time. You’re discussing what someone is, and at the same time, you’re discussing Relativity Theory. And that mistake then spreads to other participants. Suddenly, everyone is duscussing many different things at once. Moreover, it’s a particular type of subject. It’s a type of subject that people are more likely to stick to thereby making them completely forget about the original one. Noone wants other people to talk about them in public. Finally, it’s non-philosophical. There’s very little place on philosophy forums to discuss who its forum members are.
That’s what you think, that much I agree.
I don’t think anyone should be obliged to respond to points directed at them. That should be one of the main rules of the forum.
On the other hand, you have an option to ask me to address anything you think I haven’t addressed. Just link me to the post I ignored and ask me to respond to it. And I may do so. Can you link me to a point of yours that I haven’t responded to?
But why do I have to understand the two postulates? Is it really true that it’s necessary for me to do so?
The theory of general and special relativity have NOTHING TO DO with what you are saying above.
In fact, Einstein wanted to call his theory the theory of INVARIANCE, but by then “relativity” had spread far and wide,
Einstein’s theory is indeed about INVARIANCE.
This made me laugh. LOL
Because if you don’t understand the two postulates, you can’t understand anything else about the theory (a theory that has been confirmed literally thousands of times)?
Do you think that could be the reason it is necessary for you to understand the two postulates, if you want to understand the theory?
Right, this thread pretty much confirms that “philosophy ILP style” leaves much to be desired.