Why do you guys refuse to look at initiation when it is the single most important factor.
I TOLD YOU!!! 36 threads devoted exclusively to initiation and, before you came along, the subject of ROOSD was getting very little play after being written out. LIAR! (sorry, I had to see what that feels like; it could be an honest mistake if you're a total idiot - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.)
ROOSD exists so initiation can be focused on exclusively! You're the only one that wants to make it go away, for some reason. Don't admonish these guys about focusing on initiation - YOU are the only distraction and I encourage them to ignore you. Me, I can continue to argue this academic trifling.
Assuming the existence of the upper block alone is not enough to start ROOSD, so even if you refuse to make your assumptions explicit you are assuming something hugely significant.
Correct. Cause for ROOSD preconditions are never specified. The preconditions themselves, however, are seen to exist through unknown cause. The whole theory (here we go again) is that, IF THE CONDITIONS COME TO BE BY WHATEVER REASON, ROOSD say collapse is ensured.
You're saying the apple can't fall from the tree; ROOSD says, once detached, in the conditions of an orchard on Earth, it will fall to ground. Argue against that as much as you want, even from the tautology and circular angle. You still won't get much traction.
"You can't say it falls because you see it fall.."
Mechanically, it's self evident, much like Newton's take might be on an apple - ONCE detached.