Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[shruggedatlas]

@Pirate88179,

You know me. I need to see the evidence. Hope you're convinced that even regarding my own studies I'm my own worst enemy with regard to rigorousness of research and arguments. @WilbyInebriated has shown no evidence that he can change the time stamps in this forum and he should be ashamed of himself for embarrassing himself in so much insisting that he can.

I think Omnibus is right here.  But all you guys are getting sidetracked with this time stamp thing.  The important thing is to get Academia and mainstream science involved, because there is so much talent and labor there, that we could really advance overunity research greatly once we do that.

Omnibus has played an important role with overunity research already.  He has established the theoretical violations of the law of conservation of energy on several occasions.  NO ONE ELSE HAS EVER DONE THAT, THAT I HAVE SEEN. 

He has taken the Orbo and studied it and performed tests that showed overunity, where other people were not able to do so.  And where he has been critical of technologies, he has always been correct.

People like Wilby, it seems, like to engage in word games,and like to think they are more clever than other people, but where is your overunity, Wilby?  Omnibus has taken research and advanced it and established beyond doubt that the law of conservation of energy does not hold.  What have you done?  Running SQL scripts will not get you any energy!

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I think Omnibus is right here.  But all you guys are getting sidetracked with this time stamp thing.  The important thing is to get Academia and mainstream science involved, because there is so much talent and labor there, that we could really advance overunity research greatly once we do that.

Then I would recommend that both you and Omnibus get these subjects to academia.  Let's see how well you do.

Omnibus has played an important role with overunity research already.  He has established the theoretical violations of the law of conservation of energy on several occasions.  NO ONE ELSE HAS EVER DONE THAT, THAT I HAVE SEEN. 

Unfortunately NOR has Omnibus.  By his own admission.  He may have had a stab at it but what's required is a paper - and, in terms of his own recommendations - that this get published in a peer reviewed journal.  LOL.  At this stage all he can point to - and that rather vaguely - is at a thread.  It is highly unlikely that academics will take his thread contributions seriously.

He has taken the Orbo and studied it and performed tests that showed overunity, where other people were not able to do so.  And where he has been critical of technologies, he has always been correct.

The jury is still out there on Orbo technology.  And if he was correct then why is ORBO not on the academic table.  I believe it did get there and then got knocked off.

People like Wilby, it seems, like to engage in word games,and like to think they are more clever than other people, but where is your overunity, Wilby? 

People like Wilby protect the intellectual integrity of these threads precisely from the fatuous opinions of those such as Omnibus.  He makes a real contribution to the required standards of posting.  I hope you're not seriously suggesting that there's anything constructive in Ominbus's wild unsubstantiated opinions and allegations. 

Omnibus has taken research and advanced it and established beyond doubt that the law of conservation of energy does not hold.

I'm afraid you're sadly deluded if you really buy into this.  And frankly for all that Omnibus is somewhat arrogant I don't think even his arrogance would manage such a wild statement.  You really need to check your terms better shruggedatlas.  If the Laws of Conservation of Energy did not hold then we'd have an exotic form of physics that would possibly be adventurous - but it would also need to be entirely illogical.

What have you done?  Running SQL scripts will not get you any energy!

And by the same token - may I ask you what you've done?  At least Wilby knows whereof his speaks and he does it with some considerable skill.  What you show here is a rather absurd dependancy on Omnibus' 'Science based on Opinion' and regard him as somewhat of a mentor.  It's charmingly naive - but hopelessly misguided.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[shruggedatlas]

Unfortunately NOR has Omnibus.  By his own admission.  He may have had a stab at it but what's required is a paper - and, in terms of his own recommendations - that this get published in a peer reviewed journal. 

Peer reviews are nice but not necessary.  Omnibus has already shown the math many times, and the math holds up.  Soon enough, peer reviews will come.

It is true I have not done much of my own experimentation lately, but I can still distinguish information from disinformation on this board.  And wilby is no doubt a paid disinformation agent.  He incessantly harps on about his logical fallacies, but the biggest logical fallacy is why he is here.  Surely someone of his intellect has better things to do that find logical fallacies on some obscure corner of the Internet.

He is likely paid to discredit probably the only guy here who has accomplished real overunity - Omnibus.  Though he can never do that - the truth speaks louder than his nitpicking.  There is a great saying that people who say it cannot be done should not get in the way of those doing it, and Wilby should take that to heart.

[Pirate88179]

How can hacking into government systems be legal in any jurisdiction?

It isn't.  I said the folks available to me for contract work have been able to do that.  I do not hire them to do that, hence my disclaimer at the end of my post.

Bill

[WilbyInebriated]

Hi Wilby

There is a greater harm being done in answering Omnibus than in ignoring him.  I - unfortunately - have my days cut out as I've got this project to do on the thesis and it's taking much more time than I can afford here.

Wilby - let me know what to do.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary   
edited.  Spelling

indeed. both he and skcusitrah/hartisucks have a tenuous (at best) grasp on logic and have demonstrated that over and over. shrugged is close to the same mold, her post to bill was simply an effort to engage in another red herring argument for a couple pages per her usual modus operandi. look at the lack of logic used by her as evidenced by this quote "Running SQL scripts will not get you any energy!" in her defense of omnibus... no one ever claimed running sql scripts would net energy, it is just another pathetic attempt at engaging in another red herring argument... it makes me roll my eyes.

look at the false logic posited below by skcusitrah/hartisucks. the first premise about the EF admin is based upon unsubstantiated assumption, the second premise is based upon a complete falsehood. then came the conclusion, to which a good dose of hyperbole was added to finish it off with idiot flair. a false antecedent will give the appearance of leading to any conclusion... but such arguments are never sound. it seems that maybe a dozen people on this forum understand this concept. sadly, omnibus, skcusitrah/hartisucks and shrugged are not amongst them.

the EF admin has no interest in changing dates on anyone's posts, and the EF said members do not have the capability to change it themselves, so in conclusion they were not changed, and thinking that they were is ridiculous.

the repeated and continuous use of false logic by these characters does leave you in a bit of a conundrum, as i understand your desire to not have to resort to censorship or banning. however, if you don't call their fallacious logic out, they will fill your thread with irrelevant banter as sure as a bear shits in the woods. on the other hand, if you do call their false logic out, they will repeat it (fallacious logic) till blue in the face while dragging you down to their level (stupidity) and beating you with experience, as evidenced by the last few pages.

personally, i would remove it (anything that isn't relevant to your topic, including my responses) all.


@shrugged, they are not 'my' logical fallacies, they are yours, your words, now you own them. when you (and the others who engage in them) stop engaging in logical fallacies, i will stop harping on you (and the others who engage in them) about engaging in logical fallacy. if you think "the biggest logical fallacy is why he is here" then i suggest you go refresh yourself on just exactly what a logical fallacy is. i expect you shall post another logical fallacy as a response.