Valve Is Teasing "Index" - Its Own VR Headset

[ssokolow]

I'm genuinely sorry I can't deal with the concentrated autism in the latest duby229 posts, but he just went to another level entirely.

At this point he is posting 100% gibberish, there is nothing I can lock on, just stare at it in awe.

Hey, I was professionally diagnosed with asperger's syndrome, which is on the spectrum, and I'm sane and reasonable. Not all of us revel in being out of touch with reality.

If someone's nuts, just call them nuts.

(And, yes, that light tone was intended to mean "Don't worry. No offense taken.")

[duby229]

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/ro...rinciples.html

You guys seriously need to read this

EDIT: Newtons first law, read it again, and then again. Please.

EDIT: Mind you those laws were written at time before Einstein figured out how gryoscopes work.

[ssokolow]

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/ro...rinciples.html

You guys seriously need to read this

EDIT: Newtons first law, read it again, and then again. Please.

EDIT: Mind you those laws were written at time before Einstein figured out how gryoscopes work.

OK, I'm seriously starting to think that you need actual psychiatric help. If I'm wrong...

1. Please point out, specifically, where any of that conflicts with anything I've said.
2. Please clarify how the behaviour of gyroscopes and any pre-Einstein to post-Einstein shift in our understanding of them is relevant to this discussion.

Until you answer those rather than just throwing a bunch of text at me and saying "Trust me. Something in here disagrees with you," I'm going to assume that you're not arguing in good faith and will consider any and all responses to be invalid and an attempt to waste my time until I concede.

A good-faith discussion is a cooperative effort where both parties try to help each other see things from each other's perspectives.

[starshipeleven]

Hey, I was professionally diagnosed with asperger's syndrome, which is on the spectrum, and I'm sane and reasonable. Not all of us revel in being out of touch with reality.

Yes. That's why I said "concentrated autism" and not just "autism". He is on the very far end of the spectrum.

If someone's nuts, just call them nuts.

"Nuts" is too generic, it would make my statement much less accurate.

[duby229]

OK, I'm seriously starting to think that you need actual psychiatric help. If I'm wrong...

1. Please point out, specifically, where any of that conflicts with anything I've said.
2. Please clarify how the behaviour of gyroscopes and any pre-Einstein to post-Einstein shift in our understanding of them is relevant to this discussion.

Until you answer those rather than just throwing a bunch of text at me and saying "Trust me. Something in here disagrees with you," I'm going to assume that you're not arguing in good faith and will consider any and all responses to be invalid and an attempt to waste my time until I concede.

A good-faith discussion is a cooperative effort where both parties try to help each other see things from each other's perspectives.

Why are you asking me to repeat myself? This whole conversation has been disscussed from multiple angles, just go back and read.

[ssokolow]

Why are you asking me to repeat myself? This whole conversation has been disscussed from multiple angles, just go back and read.

Because I firmly believe that I or someone else has effectively countered everything you said, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to seek out a flaw in my arguments which, currently, appears to be only in your mind.

It's up to you to point out specifically where you think I'm wrong.

[ssokolow]

Yes. That's why I said "concentrated autism" and not just "autism". He is on the very far end of the spectrum.

"Nuts" is too generic, it would make my statement much less accurate.

Fair enough. How about "Concentrated autism with a sprinkling of nuts"? :P

[coder]

Yes. That's why I said "concentrated autism" and not just "autism". He is on the very far end of the spectrum.

This is out of line, IMO. I think you can't be serious, since you've never met him and don't really know him. And even if you did, it's not appropriate to "out" someone, like that.

"Nuts" is too generic, it would make my statement much less accurate.

"Nuts" is more acceptable specifically because it's more generic, without the connotations, baggage, and collateral damage of slinging around specific diagnoses. It's also more subjective and contextual, rather than accusing someone of having a specific condition.

I suggest you drop this bit of rhetoric, before it gets you flagged.

[duby229]

Because I firmly believe that I or someone else has effectively countered everything you said, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to seek out a flaw in my arguments which, currently, appears to be only in your mind.

It's up to you to point out specifically where you think I'm wrong.

Dude are you really that dumb? I never said specifically that you were wrong, YOU said specifically that -I- was. I was defending my points, because -I'm- not wrong.

The bottom line fact is you can perform lorentz transformations on light... It cannot be and is not fundamental. That was proven beyond any doubt in the 60's. Light -is- relativistic, and observe causality -just- like -everything- else. If the strength of electromagenetism was stronger, then light -would- most definitely be faster.

https://books.google.com/books?id=6k...mation&f=false
I found it.... Christopher Zeeman did it a long time ago. It's already proved.

[ssokolow]

Dude are you really that dumb? I never said specifically that you were wrong, YOU said specifically that -I- was. I was defending my points, because -I'm- not wrong.

The bottom line fact is you can perform lorentz transformations on light... It cannot be and is not fundamental. That was proven beyond any doubt in the 60's. Light -is- relativistic, and observe causality -just- like -everything- else. If the strength of electromagenetism was stronger, then light -would- most definitely be faster.

https://books.google.com/books?id=6k...mation&f=false
I found it.... Christopher Zeeman did it a long time ago. It's already proved.

And now you pivot the conversation again while neither answering my question nor explaining how this new stuff is connected to the old stuff.

This just makes you look like either a madman with a wall full of newspaper clippings connected by colored yarn or a troll trying to barrage us with irrelevant nonsense until we give up. (At the moment, I'm leaning more toward the Time Cube interpretation.)

I'm not even going to bother trying to address what you said here until you clarify where I supposedly misunderstand something in https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/ro...rinciples.html and why "Newtons first law, read it again, and then again. Please.".