Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev

[WilbyInebriated]

You are relying on quotations because you obviously are uncertain about the real meaning of ad hominem. Ad hominem may not always be a direct abuse using expletives and such but can be subtle, especially when the person using ad hominem is passive aggressive as in the case at hand. Giving a link containing unfavorable characterization instead of direct abuse is not less of ad hominem than slapping direct curses and abusive language. Lack of sensitivity to that subtlety is something the passive aggressive likes to rely on and falling in this trap is easy. Go ahead, confirm further you've fallen there too.

Also, you again are not addressing the real issue and in this way you continue to assist in destroying the forum.

i am quite certain of the definition, one needs only to look at your posts to see that you are obviously not cognizant of the definition. which is why i posted the quotation and the link... the quotation and link i gave contain the definition of ad hominem... and your arbitrary definition is just that, arbitrary. please take note of the final and emphasized paragraph of my previous post omni.

as i said before, i was just nipping your incompetence in the bud as per your request...

[Omnibus]

Did you really? Or you just think you did by providing frivolous definitions.

And, again, not addressing the real issue (the inability of Hamilton's equations to account for CoE), running around and trying to grasp at straws only proves your weakness of arguments. The desire to continue this irrelevant objection to the obvious ad hominem attack directed at me thus siding with someone destroying the forum makes you a destroyer of the forum too.

To demonstrate how ridiculous it is to rely on internet links and not on real analysis to prove a point one can use those same Hamilton's equations. You can point me to innumerable links in the net claiming the sure adequacy of Hamilton's equations, firmly established as the very essence of classical mechanics. And, yet, I've shown they are inadequate description of motion and are at odds with CoE. So much for providing links to prove me wrong. Think with your own head, give your own arguments, don't do it the lazy way, with links.

Now, of course, you can't say anything about that issue and the lazy thing to do, being incapable to understand the real problem, is to side with someone's passive aggressive attacks used to conceal his incompetence. You may not realize that, but, again, that someone in question is destroying the forum and in siding with him, even unwittingly, you contribute to that destruction.

[WilbyInebriated]

Did you really? Or you just think you did by providing frivolous definitions.

And, again, not addressing the real issue (the inability of Hamilton's equations to account for CoE), running around and trying to grasp at straws only proves your weakness of arguments. The desire to continue this irrelevant objection to the obvious ad hominem attack directed at me thus siding with someone destroying the forum makes you a destroyer of the forum too.

To demonstrate how ridiculous it is to rely on internet links and not on real analysis to prove a point one can use those same Hamilton's equations. You can point me to innumerable links in the net claiming the sure adequacy of Hamilton's equations, firmly established as the very essence of classical mechanics. And, yet, I've shown they are inadequate description of motion and are at odds with CoE. So much for providing links to prove me wrong. Yhink with your own head, give your own arguments, don't do it the lazy way, with links.

Now, of course, you can't say anything abot that issue and the lazy thing to do, being incapable to understand the real problem, is to side with someone's passive aggressive attacks used to conceal his incompetence. You may not realize that, but that someone in question is destroying the forum and in siding with him, even unwittingly, you contribute to that destruction.

let me make this clear omni, since you can't seem to comprehend it. i don't give a rats ass about hamilton. i posted regarding your erroneous claims about what an ad hominem is. you said, and i quote:

Ad hominem attack is to start posting irrelevant links in response to criticism for incompetence.

this is was, and still is, incorrect. and spouting off incorrect statements is incompetent. i corrected you, as nipping your incompetence in the bud as per your request is the only issue at hand here for me. your latest reply is simply another of your logical fallacies, this time a red herring.

as i said earlier, do yourself (and us) a favor and don't get all pretentious about things (logic) you are ignorant of.

[ramset]

This Forum Is indistructable!
Bullet proof!
Years and years of this type of stuff has given it very strong muscles!

Chet

[Omnibus]

You're confirming exactly the point I made -- you "don't give a rat's ass about hamilton". And you should. Because that's the issue.

As to whether or not you ignore the real meaning of ad hominem, as you do, that's secondary. I disagree that something written in a random link can serve as a set-in-stone definition of ad hominem, you take it as the Gospel. It's your choice but keep it for your own use, don't impose it on others. I should nip in the bud this desire of yours to impose frivolous definitions you've adopted as the Gospel to be shoved down the throat of others.

In science, however, logic is merciless and there cannot be dubiousness about notions such as Hamilton's equations. There cannot be varying opinions about what they are about and what they really show. Do you get the difference? Now, I know that because of your weakness in the scientific issues you're reluctant to address them directly and are trying to sway the discussion into the grey areas of somewhat more amorphous notions prone to interpretations. That's, of course, intellectual dishonesty in a discussion such as this and that is also a destructive behavior.