I think I'm going to create a new topic and present SP's arguments as a disputatio. That would help a lot, because while the individual is clearly confused (at best) about his ideas, they're still interesting as they are.
I think I could be the opponens, if someone wants to do either the questio and the respondens, it would make a good exercise. Then, if a confirmed Thomist would produce the determinatio, that would be great.
What do you guys think?

@JT #213
SP "Nobody here seems to even grasp these simple disproofs...."

"The fundamental arrogance and conceit, even delusion, of SP seems encapsulated in this clause".

--Have you ever seen the movie, Lorenzo's Oil?  There is a notable scene at 2:40 on the etymology or "arrogant"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDcPjTXOz3U
I call 'em like I see 'em.

"Have you ever consider that it just might be you who is wrong "
--Yes, every time I write an argument.  I always reread it carefully, looking for any possible mistakes, always searching for a better turn of phrase, a more illustrative wording.  When the responses are specious or simply erroneous that tends to indicate my argument is sound.

"and not the dozens of those here or at Feser's who have tried to point out your mistakes?"
--Jeremy, do you realize your "dozens" are a tiny number?  One can find a couple dozen people who hold nearly any opinion, no matter how unfounded.

The fact that your post does not itself contain any rational argumentation against my points or in support of A-T only tends to support my arguments and undermine your own point, amounting to little more than argumentum ad populum.

 

@FSC
"Then, if a confirmed Thomist would produce the determinatio, that would be great.
What do you guys think?"
--I think this site lacks an impartial judge on either side.

Absent a recognized impartial authority that is agreeable to both sides an agreed upon format might be viable, but that has its pitfalls as well.

Much gets lost in translation from prose to logical notation.  Even if logical notation is a complete and accurate rendition of the prose there is the further problem of logical necessity versus physical necessity.  Just because one make a valid logical argument does not necessitate its physical realization.

Line by line logical argumentation is one way to clarify the presentation, but that almost always leads to many paragraphs of prose to, say, justify the truth or dispute the truth of a particular premise.  This can lead to a recursive process of ever more detailed arguments.  Presumably, this cannot go in to infinity, but sometimes it seems like it does!

While your idea has merit, the devil is in the details.
 

grodrigues wrote:

@FrenchySkepticalCatholic:

"That would help a lot, because while the individual is clearly confused (at best) about his ideas, they're still interesting as they are."

This is merely a personal comment, but I find "his ideas" vulgar, uninformed and completely devoid of interest. The only interest is the cheap laughs one can get at the expense of his utter stupidity.

I agree that the ideas of SP are vulgar and uninformed, but they help noticing how "motion" can be clearly defined. While SP will never grasp this except by blathering "wrong wrong wrong" and not explaining or answering our comments, I feel that it would be interesting to remove confusion.

I don't want people to get the false idea that Newton's Law and Aquinas conflict, for example. It would be good to see what motion is then and now. No?

God bless.

@Stardusty Psyche:

"That is the only kind of comments you make, except for the ones that employ a scattershot of physics terms anybody could pick up by lurking physics forums."

You are confusing me with yourself, someone who can barely read, cannot get elementary high-school physics right or even mount the semblance of an argument. I can justify anything and everything I have said about physics and even give copious textbook references (everything I have said is pretty standard textbook stuff). I can feel your envy, resentment and impotent rage, but this is just a fact, you are the idiot ignoramus, I am the knowledgeable one. Them's the breaks, no matter how much you try to convince yourself otherwise. That you are a delusional kook living in a crank's bubble is your problem alone. No go off and skim wikipedia again on Renormalization so you can pretend you know anything about it.