Okay, so I received multiple requests to ban SP. What we'll do is give him one last chance. Even in this thread, SP must not troll. He must only post good faith, careful, intelligent arguments. Any trolling, nonsense, or insults will be deleted. I have been doing this already, it is just often his trolling gets responses and I didn't want to delete posts others have responded to unless absolutely necessary. Now I will delete them, though I ask you all to ignore anything that looks like trolling until it can be deleted.

SP is moving towards yet another ban, though I doubt this one will cause any more self-reflection than all the others.

"Each time I'm banned..."

You know, I'm certainly not always irenic in internet discussion. Like many online I'm quite capable of being prickly when I think my opposites in discussion are not arguing properly. I also like to argue and enjoy the cut and thrust of internet debate, especially in the past. I've posted on quite a few forums and blogs in the last decade or so. I have been banned from none. To be banned from the many you have is quite extraordinary, as is the sheer lack of any circumspection in your comments about it.

Bad faith is reflected in obvious trolling, baiting, and bullshitting.

No, FSC, among the Feserites the namecalling has been nearly entirely directed against me and not returned in kind because I simply find the endless ad hominems to be very boring.

Not entirely is a vague modifier, but I have certainly seen you post insults quite a few times, though it is true you receive much more than you get and the volume of heat you receive (albeit for understandable reasons) would be likely to cause a retaliatory shot from time to time, I grant you.

Anyway, given it is almost certainly you who hasn't grasped the issue or is putting forward a fallacious argument, posts in which you just repeat what you have said before, pretending it hasn't been dealt with, or you try to give debating advice to others, will be strong candidates for deletion. If you think someone else's post could only be answered in this way, ignore it.

"I simply find the endless ad hominems to be very boring."

As someone who has a (very?) large share of guilt on this, I will say that this is the *only* part of "arguing" with SP that has, an admittedly quite low, entertainment value -- coming up with new insults (although I will also admit I am not very good at it). Joining in the pretense that Stardusty is worthwhile partner of discussion does not strike me as the best policy. As I said in a note in my third post in this thread "I will neither delete nor edit any word of my post. If the admins find my words too harsh for the rules of this forum, feel free to delete them." Not that this will be needed anymore, because I am done here and have already proved what I set out to prove.

@Calhoun

you do nothing to overturn that. instead again sneak accidentalness in then run away with it.

You point out what you think is an essential element.
I show that is an accidental element.
You say I ignored you or
You say I am sneaking in accidentalness.

Every real material causal series is "accidental".  Every example you gave of an asserted "essential" element is actually "accidental".

Molecular collision is temporal process but it isn't thereby accidental because it depends here and now existence of molecules if molecules don't exist there is no molecular collision.

How does the existence of particular objects show they are in an "essential" causal series?

Of course, it is incoherent to speak of non-existent things doing things.  Fine.  How does that demonstrate an "essential" causal series?

All the molecules in our galaxy exist right now at the same time.  So does that mean we can have an "essential" causal series that spans our galaxy?

But once again As I've demonstrated thats not true , You're the one who misunderstands the point, I haven't talked about smashing an object into pile of atoms in the first place.

You feel that within this blog space you have shown that reductionism cannot be the case?  Where?  Can you provide the post number that contains your disproof of reductionism?

You're the one who is thinking loosely here and making assertion, if A moves and B moved and movement of A is dependent here and now on movement of B then such series is essential not accidental.

Ok, let's consider two bodies in motion, say 2 electrons one moving toward a stationary one. 
Time passes, the electrons get closer.
Both being negatively charged they repel each other.
Time passes the stationary electron is positively accelerated while the moving electron is negatively accelerated.
Time passes as a temporal process of kinetic energy transfer continues.
More time passes as the electrons get closer and closer as more and more kinetic energy is transfered.
Scotty on the Starship Enterprise beams the faster moving electron out.
The previously stationary electron continues to move in uniform linear motion.
The transfer of kinetic energy is not undone.

There is no single cause and effect.  There is a temporal process, a continual sequence of causes and effect making the overall process "accidental".

There was no single event of "movement" that occurred "essentially", rather, there was a process over time of energy transfer.  When 1 electron was removed the other electron simply kept moving retaining the energy that had been transferred.

All 2 body collisions are like that.  We approximate the collision as a single event, but really it was a process over time with no "essential" dependency.  If one body is removed then the "accidental" series halts, that's all.  One system proceeds one way, another system proceeds another way.  If you change from one system to another system then you change how things progress. 

How does that somehow necessitate a hierarchical regress?

So then that illustrates an essential causal series to us, You annihilate the air you discontinue the sound.

First we have moving air.
Then we take away the air.
Now there is no moving air.
What do you suppose that demonstrates?

If you change things then different things happen.  How does that call for a hierarchical regress?

First we have air with a propagating density wave. 
Change things by removing the air.
Now there is no propagating density wave.
Ok, yes, that's true, how does that somehow call for a hierarchical regress?

Which simply isn't related to changing the past, Secondly once again you've simply missed the point , the "keeping" of energy in 3 isn't exercising on part of 1

What do you mean by "exercising on part of 1"?

Now similarly neither is any action of grandson are exercising of grandfathers power now.

In a series of bodies colliding the first body is analogous to the grandfather, then subsequent body is analogous to the grandson, which is why every series of colliding bodies is an "accidental" series.

The 1 ball rolls
Time passes
The 1 ball hits the 2 ball
The 2 ball rolls
Time passes
The 2 ball hits the 3 ball
The 3 ball rolls
Time passes
The 3 ball falls in the pocket

The 1 ball is like the grandfather.  After it hits the 2 ball the 1 ball could disappear from existence or not, it doesn't matter as far as the 3 ball is concerned.  Every series of colliding objects is like that, an "accidental" series.

But this has all the ingredients of personal attack, first it has little to no relevance to any of my points

Education does affect how one makes points.  I do not have an education as a medical doctor so I am open to being corrected on medical subjects by someone who does.  But if I say my temperature is 101F that is not a false statement just because I am not a medical doctor.  Nor is the statement of a medical doctor necessarily correct simply because the individual is educated in that field.

it doesn't reveal any lack of physics education on my part,

Despite what you might think this is meant to be an encouragement to expand your horizons and gather some more information to take a fresh look at things, not a personal attack. Several of your statements that are factually false regarding basic physics indicate your lack of education on that subject.  That doesn't make you stupid, but it does affect your thinking on these subjects and your ability to form sound arguments and analyze other arguments reasonably.

You said

Like seen above there isn't there isn't any spinning, vibrating and oscillating in shape of protons and no objects that depend on that would exist.

That is a false statement.
Proton Spin Mystery Gains a New Clue
Physicists long assumed a proton’s spin came from its three constituent quarks. New measurements suggest particles called gluons make a significant contribution
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/proton-spin-mystery-gains-a-new-clue1/

Nobody with an education in physics would make such a statement.  I provided you with several links that show how wrong your statement is.  It is unfortunate you choose to go into denial on this subject.  There are lots of subjects I do not have an education in.  One cannot major in everything.  This need not be a matter of denial or disparagement.  It doesn't mean you can't reason about physical scenarios, it just means that communication with you is difficult in some respects because you do not understand some of the facts of modern physics.

This once again, reveal only an instance of essential dependence.

What in the SA article revealed an "essential" dependence on what?  Did the terms act, potency, accidental, or essential appear in the SA article in their A-T meanings?

I have repeatedly shown how your point about propagation is mistaken, there is this simple essential dependence here, one between the medium and the propagation without the medium there is no propagation.

How does that comprise an "essential" causal series?  This observation of yours is merely tautological.

Without air there is no moving air.

Without space electromagnetic energy cannot propagate through space.

What explanatory value do you find in these tautologies?  How do these tautologies necessitate a hierarchical regress?