Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev

[Omnibus]

Posting links won't do. I told you that already. You need to think with your own head and not be lazily expecting ready answers in links. There are other lazy people in the world too. They copy from each other. That's an easy, although intellectually dishonest way to create websites. In fact that's cluttering the web (the web is cluttered with nonsense, OK, or you disagree with that too). I am telling you once again, you can't prove the veracity of a scientific thesis by just even quoting numerous standard texts, let alone links on the web. That doesn't cut the mustard as far as solid argumentation goes. Your argumentation is weak in trying get away with just citing links, understand that. And, again, don't make me repeat what I already said. Go back, read what I wrote regarding ad hominem and you'll get the answer to the question you're posing.

[WilbyInebriated]

Posting links won't do. I told you that already. You need to think with your own head and not be lazily expecting ready answers in links. There are other lazy people in the world too. They copy from each other. That's an easy, although intellectually dishonest way to create websites. In fact that's cluttering the web (the web is cluttered with nonsense, OK, or you disagree with that too). I am telling you once again, you can't prove the veracity of a scientific thesis by just even quoting numerous standard texts, let alone links on the web. That doesn't cut the mustard as far as solid argumentation goes. Your argumentation is weak in trying get away with just citing links, understand that. And, again, don't make me repeat what I already said. Go back, read what I wrote regarding ad hominem and you'll get the answer to the question you're posing.

LMFAO... omni, i have presented no argument, nor are we discussing a scientific thesis... i made a statement, calling out your error. that statement was thus: "incorrect, that would be a different logical fallacy. one known as a red herring... "

which was in response to  your post, which was thus:

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

now, please show us all what my "argument" was... define what the premise was and the conclusion. you don't even know what a logical argument is defined as...

if you can manage that, which i highly doubt, please provide us with your definition of exactly what an ad hominem fallacy is. please provide all qualifications and exceptions.

[Omnibus]

As a matter of fact the last discussion reveals one substantial flaw in the pursuit of OU -- the neglect of logic and deep thinking so pivotal in getting OU across to society. As I said earlier, the main thing to be understood for a successful winning the society over is the need to focus the discussion in more quantitative terms, into discussing numbered equations. All the enemies of OU, agents and zealous activists try to stay away from such quantitative discussions and always divert the talk into sociological, philosophical, ethical, aesthetical and what not types of discussions, all subject to interpretations. This is how they say the common person would understand it better. This is a very devious tactics used widely. That should be fought fiercely by those who care about OU research. We have other difficulties too, as the difficulty with the likes of Mikhail Dmitriev, Kapanadze and so on holding everybody hostage to their promises. Another difficulty comes from those putting forth ideas and waiting for others to actually manufacture the devices only to claim priority. The diversion towards interpretational discussions, however, is one of the most dangerous and destructive because it preys on the general misunderstanding of science fundamentals and thus can easily win popular support through manipulation. That's why it is so important to spend some time in exposing this devious tactics.

[WilbyInebriated]

As a matter of fact the last discussion reveals one substantial flaw in the pursuit of OU -- the neglect of logic and deep thinking so pivotal in getting OU across to society. As I said earlier, the main thing to be understood for a successful winning the society over is the need to focus the discussion in more quantitative terms, into discussing numbered equations. All the enemies of OU, agents and zealous activists try to stay away from such quantitative discussions and always divert the talk into sociological, philosophical, ethical, aesthetical and what not types of discussions, all subject to interpretations. This is how they say the common person would understand it better. This is a very devious tactics used widely. That should be fought fiercely by those who care about OU research. We have other difficulties too, as the difficulty with the likes of Mikhail Dmitriev, Kapanadze and so on holding everybody hostage to their promises. Another difficulty comes from those putting forth ideas and waiting for others to actually manufacture the devices only to claim priority. The diversion towards interpretational discussions, however, is one of the most dangerous and destructive because it preys on the general misunderstanding of science fundamentals and thus can easily win popular support through manipulation. That's why it is so important to spend some time in exposing this devious tactics.

i'll accept that as a tacit admission that you cannot provide a definition.

in conversing with you omni, i am constantly reminded of the saying "you can't use reason to argue somebody out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into"...

[Omnibus]

One important destructive element in this respect is Karl Popper whose bogus philosophy of falsifying a theory has had substantial influence in some circles. Careful inspection of that "philosophy", using the said quantitative approach, reveals that the individual in question doesn't even care to check whether or not something he has pronounced as a theory (to subject it to his falsifiability criterion) qualifies as a theory in the first place. He doesn't even care whether or not his so-called theory can be the subject of his own criterion in order for it to be used further as a tool to explore the veracity of other theories.

Now, there are many people, just like our friend here, who pick that "theory" and metaphysically apply it as a tool without a second thought. That has incurred substantial harm to science, more than one can imagine, and is one of the reasons why science is in such shambles today. One really wonders, was that because of the sheer mediocrity of that person or that was a deliberate act of destruction so that intellectuals worldwide can be controlled more easily.