'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

[MarkE]

Are you suffering reading comprehension problems?

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 08:31:36 AM

    If you are going to go off pushing autodynamics now, you will find that it has been falsified.

Can you please provide a reference link to back up your assertion.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

Are you suffering reading comprehension problems?

It is you, who is suffering from poor reading comprehension, and not me.  I never pushed autodynamics as you falsely asserted.  Like I said, you blatantly attempted to distort or blur the facts by referring to autodynamics instead of referring to the modified Cavendish experiment itself.  More smoke and mirrors from you!

Gravock

[gravityblock]

George P. Dvorsky is a Canadian bioethicist, transhumanist, and futurist. He is a contributing editor at io9 and producer of the Sentient Developments blog and podcast."  So, this is the fellow that made the post where you copied that map?  OK, I can clearly see where we need to through out everything known in science and believe this guy......what credentials!

Look at the sources you are using here.  I mean...really?

The sources of the model, which provided the ultra-high resolution maps and videos of Earth's gravity field, was developed by scientists of Curtin University and Technische Universität München. 

Gravock

[allcanadian]

@MarkE

So jamming your fingers in your ears and yelling "nah, nah, nah" it is to be.

No, your appeal to emotion is a strawman argument.


What I meant was you are using the fallacy fallacy argument when you said GB's claim was false. You also routinely apply tu quoque to avoid your false assertions ie. the fallacy fallacy.




@All
If we want to understand the misleading logic behind many of the arguments made here I would suggest checking out this website....https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/. It is a very insightful website and I should thank Mark for leading me in this direction. I think it does give tangible insight into our thought process however it also shows how it can be manipulated. Which is the real reason I generally opt out of pointless conversations which lead nowhere. Round and round we go.


On a side note many may recognize this fallacy:
Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted   (argumentum ad nauseam).



AC

[MarkE]

@MarkE

No, your appeal to emotion is a strawman argument.

What I meant was you are using the fallacy fallacy argument when you said GB's claim was false. You also routinely apply tu quoque to avoid your false assertions ie. the fallacy fallacy.




@All
If we want to understand the misleading logic behind many of the arguments made here I would suggest checking out this website....https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/. It is a very insightful website and I should thank Mark for leading me in this direction. I think it does give tangible insight into our thought process however it also shows how it can be manipulated. Which is the real reason I generally opt out of pointless conversations which lead nowhere. Round and round we go.

It's a good web site.  You should pay attention to what it has to say.

On a side note many may recognize this fallacy:
Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.[1] Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted   (argumentum ad nauseam).



AC