hey, this is part of a thesis/ theory that i have been working on forever it seems...i think that these ideas will change physics...i hope you too will find simple answers to the problems that plague the classic and quantum models... there are 2 energy streams and they are polar by nature....the singularity is split into a ring...this ring is bi-directional, super-fluid and equal, effectively cancelling each other....twist this into an 8 [infinity] and you have two lobes..take a pen...draw an infinity sign...there are 2 streams so draw it again...the streams still cancel each other...take your pen and draw that sign again this time draw two circles on top of each other and then at the point where you started and draw two more circles finishing the infinity sign...you see the lobes do not cancel now but you have a direction to move from< the point>....move either direction and we have attraction/repulsion N and S,magnetism etc....movement causes this attraction/repulsion so one lobe is bigger ...doppler...[that is why one pole is stronger}...so now we see that from the singularity we get a ring [or disc] bi- dimensional/directional..add movement and you will have time behind you, space ahead....the only reason we experience any of these forces is the difference in lobe size ...due to acceleration/spin,one lobe is dominant [red shift problem]....this theory was written by david lambright on Thur.1/20/2011... we KNOW about super fluidity, conductivity etc...these forces are all easily manipulated...convection is temperature dependent but bi-directional....the floor you stand on consider even or rest temperature, and one foot =1 degree....bring a point into the room five degrees warmer, and you will have a spike or if colder a pit...vortex/anti vortex...convection pulls down the point till it reaches an even temp...this is the same mechanism that is gravity....one lobe bigger than the other to create the attraction/repulsion that we feel as gravity..there are two supreme forces that all the forces arise from ...the math will prove this.... ...the 90 degree or linear to radial interaction;...a particle, at absolute zero, moving through space becomes a line....any interaction with anything takes energy from it, but since energy can only be transfered,any interaction with a boundary, turns into rotation, bi directionally....there will be a lot more about this and the experiments that led me here....thanks...david
I'm sorry to do this, really I am.
I see it was written in a free-thought,
"As thoughts come to mind" type of style.
But I couldn't seem to force myself
through that entire Wall-o-Words....
If I sliced in the wrong spot(s) below,
I am sorry about that.
Quote from: david lambright on January 21, 2011, 12:28:10 AM
hey,
this is part of a thesis/ theory that i
have been working on forever it seems...
i think that these ideas will change physics...
i hope you too will find simple answers to the problems
that plague the classic and quantum models...
there are 2 energy streams
and they are polar by nature....
the singularity is split into a ring...
this ring is bi-directional,
super-fluid and equal,
effectively cancelling each other....
twist this into an 8 [infinity]
and you have two lobes...
take a pen...draw an infinity sign...
there are 2 streams so draw it again...
the streams still cancel each other...
take your pen and draw that sign again
this time draw two circles on top of each other
and then at the point where you started
draw two more circles finishing the infinity sign...
you see the lobes do not cancel now
but you have a direction to move from <the point>....
move either direction and we have
attraction/repulsion N and S,magnetism etc....
movement causes this attraction/repulsion
so one lobe is bigger ...doppler...
[that is why one pole is stronger}...
so now we see that from the singularity
we get a ring [or disc] bi-dimensional/directional...
add movement and you will have
time behind you, space ahead...
the only reason we experience any of these forces
is the difference in lobe size ...
due to acceleration/spin,
one lobe is dominant [red shift problem]....
this theory was written by
david lambright on Thur.1/20/2011...
we KNOW about super fluidity, conductivity etc...
these forces are all easily manipulated...
convection is temperature dependent
but bi-directional....
consider the floor you stand on even
or (a) rest temperature,
and one foot = 1 degree....
bring a point into the room five degrees warmer,
and you will have a spike
or if colder a pit...
vortex/anti vortex...
convection pulls down the point till it reaches an even temp...
this is the same mechanism that is gravity....
one lobe bigger than the other to create
the attraction/repulsion that we feel as gravity...
there are two supreme forces that all the forces arise from ...
the math will prove this...
the 90 degree or linear to radial interaction;...
a particle, at absolute zero,
moving through space
becomes a line....
any interaction with anything
takes energy from it,
but since energy can only be transfered,
any interaction with a boundary,
turns into rotation,
bi directionally....
there will be a lot more about this
and the experiments that led me here....
thanks...
david
This has been been a problem in earlier years,
before computers could easily render almost any
3D representation of interactive linears/logs.
Many families of math were created originally,
just to allow the ability to define something.
But the really hard thing
is finding the simple thing.
There can be no representation
without a few things first.
A point (or more) of reference(s) to view from,
and motion or vector(s) in relation to that/them.
Something as simple as the fact that
differing forms of energy flow in a wire
in opposite directions simultaniously
can be represented in many ways.
But finding the "Simple" way to display it,
and have it be intuitive too is the challange.
Your idea reminds me of older dipole-vectors,
often used in the antenna technology sector.
But again,
it is how to represent your ideas
that may be the challange here.
Communication/language only works,
because we agree on the meaning of words.
Same is true in the many branches of science,
be they (Ideas) represented with math or models.
With each branch of the sciences using
their own "Language" to represent things,
it is no wonder they arrive at the same conclusion
in completely different ways from each other,
but cannot accept each others methods used
to arrive at that identical outcome of data...
Finding a simple model (Like your asserting here)
would go a long way to lowering those barriers.
http://www.energeticforum.com/members/david-lambright.html .....read this
No gibberish, please. Only observations, facts and measurements. Theory, after.
Proof you have? Let's see it then.
A THEORY does several things: it explains existing phenomena in a coherent manner. Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known. It also makes NEW PREDICTIONS of phenomena that are not yet understood. That is, any real theory of anything generates testable HYPOTHESES, which are "if-then" statements. If I hook up these components in this manner and put in thus signal for x time, I will then observe Y behaviour, which is NOT already predicted by current existing theories like QED which you are apparently trying to replace.
So, Mr. Lambright, I challenge you to use your "theory" to generate a testable hypothesis that reveals behaviour that is currently unexplained by the standard theories that are being used today to make things like computers and spacecraft and nylon stockings.
If you and your "theory" cannot do that much, then it's not a theory at all, but just a bunch of word salad, with a low-fat vinaigrette dressing.
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 07, 2011, 11:23:14 AM
Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known.
wrong. coherent means:
â€"adjective
1. logically connected; consistent: a coherent argument.
2. cohering; sticking together: a coherent mass of sticky candies.
3. having a natural or due agreement of parts; harmonious: a coherent design.
4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed phase relationship, as in coherent light.
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 07, 2011, 11:23:14 AMSo, Mr. Lambright, I challenge you to use your "theory" to generate a testable hypothesis that reveals behaviour that is currently unexplained by the standard theories that are being used today to make things like computers and spacecraft and nylon stockings.
could you specify which unexplained behaviors your red herring pertains to?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 07, 2011, 06:49:59 PM
wrong. coherent means:
â€"adjective
1. logically connected; consistent: a coherent argument.
2. cohering; sticking together: a coherent mass of sticky candies.
3. having a natural or due agreement of parts; harmonious: a coherent design.
4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed phase relationship, as in coherent light.
could you specify which unexplained behaviors your red herring pertains to?
Still playing the fool, I see.
What part of the definitions you have posted do you have trouble understanding? If a "theory" is internally contradictory and does not stick together with what is already known, it's incoherent --- as Lambright's word salad shows quite clearly.
It's not up to me to show how somebody else's weak conjectures predict and explain any currently unexplained phenomena. That is what a THEORY is supposed to do. I am asking for the creator of the "Theory" outlined here to list one or more currently unexplained behaviours that his "theory" explains or predicts. Any real theory of anything can do this -- it's what theories do.
Your trolling is getting pretty weak, maybe you need to go back to sleep under your bridge for a while.
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 08, 2011, 04:28:49 AM
Still playing the fool, I see.
What part of the definitions you have posted do you have trouble understanding? If a "theory" is internally contradictory and does not stick together with what is already known, it's incoherent --- as Lambright's word salad shows quite clearly.
It's not up to me to show how somebody else's weak conjectures predict and explain any currently unexplained phenomena. That is what a THEORY is supposed to do. I am asking for the creator of the "Theory" outlined here to list one or more currently unexplained behaviours that his "theory" explains or predicts. Any real theory of anything can do this -- it's what theories do.
Your trolling is getting pretty weak, maybe you need to go back to sleep under your bridge for a while.
still engaging in logical fallacies i see... ::)
what part of the definition do you have trouble understanding? you said "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known." nowhere, i repeat, NOWHERE in the definition of that word does it say anything remotely close to what you said. furthermore, something can be coherent without "sticking together with what is already known". ::) it does this by being logically connected; consistent... as per the
definition.
your fallacies are getting pretty weak, maybe you need to brush up...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 08, 2011, 06:46:07 AM
still engaging in logical fallacies i see... ::)
what part of the definition do you have trouble understanding? you said "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known." nowhere, i repeat, NOWHERE in the definition of that word does it say anything remotely close to what you said. furthermore, something can be coherent without "sticking together with what is already known". ::) it does this by being logically connected; consistent... as per the definition.
your fallacies are getting pretty weak, maybe you need to brush up...
Never mind sticking together with what's already known. If what is proposed is internally contradictory it is indeed incoherent. Such a proposal isn't even a theory. Internally contradictory proposal is simply called nonsense. You'll shoot down that thing right there if you can point out the internal contradiction.
Hi David,
As several have asked is there a way for you to physically prove your theory. Or perhaps give us a simplied diagram of what you are discussing so we can examine and digest it.
Thanks
Bizzy
Quote from: Bizzy on February 08, 2011, 12:18:01 PM
Hi David,
As several have asked is there a way for you to physically prove your theory. Or perhaps give us a simplied diagram of what you are discussing so we can examine and digest it.
Thanks
Bizzy
What theory? If @Tinsel Koala is right there's no theory there but plain and simple nonsense. A creation based on internal contradicitons is not a theory. It is nonsense. Nonsense requires no physical proof.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 11:42:18 AM
Never mind sticking together with what's already known. If what is proposed is internally contradictory it is indeed incoherent. Such a proposal isn't even a theory. Internally contradictory proposal is simply called nonsense. You'll shoot down that thing right there if you can point out the internal contradiction.
tu stultus es... take your red herrings elsewhere. no one said anything about internal contradictions. tinsel said and i quote: "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known." this is completely incorrect. a coherent argument, theory or whatever you want to call it,
can contradict what is already known... ::) science has done such on a regular and consistent basis throughout its history.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 08, 2011, 04:40:33 PM
tu stultus es... take your red herrings elsewhere. no one said anything about internal contradictions. tinsel said and i quote: "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known." this is completely incorrect. a coherent argument, theory or whatever you want to call it, can contradict what is already known... ::) science has done such on a regular and consistent basis throughout its history.
Don't lie. @Tinsel Koala said "If a "theory" is internally contradictory ... it's incoherent --- as Lambright's word salad shows quite clearly."
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 04:48:02 PM
Don't lie. @Tinsel Koala said "If a "theory" is internally contradictory ... it's incoherent --- as Lambright's word salad shows quite clearly."
noone was talking to you... tu stultus es.
don't misrepresent... ::) he said that
after i posted the correct definition of the word. as the record shows quite clearly... see reply #4 ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 08, 2011, 04:54:55 PM
noone was talking to you... tu stultus es.
don't misrepresent... ::) he said that after i posted the correct definition of the word. as the record shows quite clearly... see reply #4 ::)
So, he said that the "theory" in question is self-contradictory and you lied that he didn't.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 05:01:54 PM
So, he said that the "theory" in question is self-contradictory and you lied that he didn't.
lies. he said, and i quote: "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known"... which is incorrect. ::) it is, however, not surprising. tinsel likes to make up his own definitions. he has done this before.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 08, 2011, 05:04:56 PM
lies. he said, and i quote: "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known"... ::)
Well, you're rubbing that because you don't wanna admit the more important part, namely, that @Tinsel Koala claims said "theory" is based on internal contradictions. That's what makes it indeed incoherent. So, if @Tinsel Koala really demonstrates that the "theory" in question has internal contradictions then he is right about 'coherence'. As for you, you're stuck in your usual style of memorized definitions which you use without real understanding let alone that in focusing on those definitions you're sidetracking the important stuff always digging into trifle issues (non-issues, rather) instead.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 05:10:20 PM
Well, you're rubbing that because you don't wanna admit the more important part, namely, that @Tinsel Koala claims said "theory" is based on internal contradictions. That's what makes it indeed incoherent. So, if @Tinsel Koala really demonstrates that the "theory" in question has internal contradictions then he is right about 'coherence'. As for you, you're stuck in your usual style of memorized definitions which you use without real understanding let alone that in focusing on those definitions you're sidetracking the important stuff always digging into trifle issues (non-issues, rather) instead.
tu stultus es... which did he 'claim' first omni? what i quoted or what you're harping on?
What's really important is whathe really means. You attacked him and lied that he didn't talk about internal contradictions after he did say that, really expressing what he really means. The real issue, however, is, of course, can @Tinsel Koala sustain his claim that the theory at hand is based on internal contradictions. The rest is splitting hairs which you love to do best.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 06:03:22 PM
What's really important is whathe really means. You attacked him and lied that he didn't talk about internal contradictions after he did say that, really expressing what he really means. The real issue, however, is, of course, can @Tinsel Koala sustain his claim that the theory at hand is based on internal contradictions. The rest is splitting hairs which you love to do best.
denied. red herring. you didn't answer my question in an attempt to misdirect the issue. which did he 'claim' first omni? what i quoted or what you're harping on?
he was wrong. and still is.
men admit their errors and amend their words when shown to be in error. the real issue between tinsel and i is his asinine adherence to his incorrect definition of coherent. i don't care what you did on who... ::)
"Communicating badly and then acting smug when misunderstood is not cleverness." -- randall munroe
He was in obvious error requiring that a theory should not contradict what is already known. That's not a logical error, however, as you're pushing but is some kind of general misunderstanding of what a theory really is or he just didn't express himself correctly. However, if he shows internal contradictions he will not be in error in using the word 'coherent' which he used first, you criticized him for that but, given that he can prove internal contradictions, the usage of that word was just right. So, if he shows internal contradictions you should be the one to applogize for bugging him about insubstantial issues, being wrong at that.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 06:22:38 PM
He was in obvious error requiring that a theory should not contradict what is already known. That's not a logical error, however, as you're pushing but is some kind of general misunderstanding of what a theory really is or he just didn't express himself correctly.
so now you concede that he was in obvious error... ::) tu stultus es... q.e.d.
you didn't answer my question in an attempt to misdirect the issue. which did he 'claim' first omni? what i quoted or what you're harping on? for the record, i never pushed his asinine definition as a logical error. if you think i did, please quote the post that supports your asinine position.
the logical errors all belong to you omni... ::)
What I'm really interested in is what the internal contradictions are in the "theory" under discussion which @Tinsel Koala alluded to. That's the issue, not your nitpicking about details, obviously having nothing else to do.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 07:48:58 PM
What I'm really interested in is what the internal contradictions are in the "theory" under discussion which @Tinsel akoala alluded to. That's the issue, not your nitpicking about details, obviously having nothing else to do.
again, you didn't answer my question in an attempt to misdirect the issue. which did he 'claim' first omni? what i quoted or what you're harping on?what you're "interested in" isn't the issue... ::) the issue i have (with tinselkoala) is clearly defined in my first reply in this thread (to tinselkoala). no one cares what you're interested in... mint? good grief! you're certifiable.
On the contrary, the issue is the "theory" in question and whether or not it is based on internal contradictions. Your nitpicking isn't the issue, no matter how much you try to push it (do you need a quotation that you really do?)
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 07:54:18 PM
On the contrary, the issue is the "theory" in question and whether or not it is based on internal contradictions. Your nitpicking isn't the issue, no matter how much you try to push it (do you need a quotation that you really do?)
again, you didn't answer my question in an attempt to misdirect the issue. which did he 'claim' first omni? what i quoted or what you're harping on?in regards to your latest logically fallacious response: on the contrary. i stated
my issue (with tinselkoala's made up definition of coherent) if you have "issues" (and you obviously do) take them up with the author of the theory in question. they do not concern me, nor are they relevant to the issue i have with tinselkoala's asinine definition of coherent.
Your issues with whoever are immaterial here. Here we have a theory to discuss and that's the real issue. Don't foist on the readership of this forum your own issues.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 08:14:24 PM
Your issues with whoever are immaterial here. Here we have a theory to discuss and that's the real issue. Don't foist on the readership of this forum your own issues.
again, you didn't answer my question in an attempt to misdirect the issue. which did he 'claim' first omni? what i quoted or what you're harping on?regarding your red herring reply: if someone decides to post their own arbitrary, made up definition of a word, i will call them on it (especially tinselkoala, after that "replication" fiasco awhile back). you can blowhard all day trying to tell me what to do... i could care less.
That's fine to discuss definitions and when you understand what the opponent really means and that turns out to be acceptable then you move on and do not continue to nag.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 08:20:47 PM
That's fine to discuss definitions and when you understand what the opponent really means and that turns out to be acceptable then you move on and do not continue to nag.
regarding your red herring response: aye, but he didn't admit his error did he? he tried to twist and squirm and
change his definition once again... didn't he. ::)
show me where in this post the words "internally contradictory" are used... ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 07, 2011, 11:23:14 AM
Proof you have? Let's see it then.
A THEORY does several things: it explains existing phenomena in a coherent manner. Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known. It also makes NEW PREDICTIONS of phenomena that are not yet understood. That is, any real theory of anything generates testable HYPOTHESES, which are "if-then" statements. If I hook up these components in this manner and put in thus signal for x time, I will then observe Y behaviour, which is NOT already predicted by current existing theories like QED which you are apparently trying to replace.
So, Mr. Lambright, I challenge you to use your "theory" to generate a testable hypothesis that reveals behaviour that is currently unexplained by the standard theories that are being used today to make things like computers and spacecraft and nylon stockings.
If you and your "theory" cannot do that much, then it's not a theory at all, but just a bunch of word salad, with a low-fat vinaigrette dressing.
yeah it's not there omni... oh look, he doesn't add
that qualification until his reply to me calling out his error...
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 08, 2011, 04:28:49 AM
Still playing the fool, I see.
What part of the definitions you have posted do you have trouble understanding? If a "theory" is internally contradictory and does not stick together with what is already known, it's incoherent --- as Lambright's word salad shows quite clearly.
thus, tu stultus es... q.e.d.
Well, but finally this is what it boils down to -- @Tinsel Koala claims there are internal contradictions in the discussed "theory". That should be the focus of the debate and not how we got to know what he really thinks about the theory, concealed at the beginning into an inexact definition.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 08:35:55 PM
Well, but finally this is what it boils down to -- @Tinsel Koala claims there are internal contradictions in the discussed "theory". That should be the focus of the debate and not how we got to know what he really thinks about the theory, concealed at the beginning into an inexact definition.
"well, " ::) is that all you have? LMFAO!!!
no. this is what it boils down to: tinsel claimed "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known." i called him out on this most obvious error. as usual, he refused to admit he was wrong and then simply amend his words. he instead choose to twist and squirm and ''move the goalposts', and you jumped to his defense. now, if you want to have a debate with tinsel and whomever (not me) about dave's theory, have at it, but don't go trying to tell me what my issue with tinsel is (or should be)... it makes you look stupid.
Your problem is that you don't see the wider perspective in these debates and are holding on to memorized little definitions and approaches which limit you from seeing the bigger picture. Clarifying what one meant isn't moving the goalposts but is just what it is -- clarification. You obviously feel the need to pounce on somebody and are ambushing people for slight inexactnesses in expressing their thoughts only to make a big deal out of them. By the way, it was obvious what @Tinsel Koala meant from the get go and that hasn't been answered yet.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 09:27:53 PM
Your problem is that you don't see the wider perspective in these debates and are holding on to memorized little definitions and approaches which limit you from seeing the bigger picture. Clarifying what one meant isn't moving the goalposts but is just what it is -- clarification. You obviously feel the need to pounce on somebody and are ambushing people for slight inexactnesses in expressing their thoughts only to make a big deal out of them. By the way, it was obvious what @Tinsel Koala meant from the get go and that hasn't been answered yet.
regarding your red herring reply: your problem is that you don't understand that your "wider perspective" is irrelevant to the issue i have with tinsel's arbitrary definitions... ::) regarding clarification: that would be fine and dandy had he admitted his error and amended his words, he decided on another way...
Clarification is enough. What is there to admit? He didn't change his opinion about the "theory" so there's nothing to apologize.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 09:56:25 PM
Clarification is enough. What is there to admit? He didn't change his opinion about the "theory" so there's nothing to apologize.
regarding your red herring response: his opinion about the "theory" is irrelevant. it is his erroneous definition of coherent that is the issue i have with tinselkoala. this has been explained to you several times... are you mental?
Yeah, but in the end he sharpened the definition to express what he really meant. His more nuanced definition is actually correct and therefore that issue is already moot.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 10:10:04 PM
Yeah, but in the end he sharpened the definition to express what he really meant. His more nuanced definition is actually correct and therefore that issue is already moot.
on the contrary. tinsel claimed "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known." he then squirmed and twisted that into "internally contradictory"... and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. tu stutus es... q.e.d.
Well, I think we already agreed on "contradict the already known" part as incorrect. Why bring it back? The internal inconsistency is what was brought in not as a squirm and twist but as a clarification of what was meant. I already said that. The internal inconsistency is the pivot and it should not be sidetracked by irrelevant talk.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 10:26:56 PM
Well, I think we already agreed on "contradict the already known" part as incorrect. Why bring it back? The internal inconsistency is what was brought in not as a squirm and twist but as a clarification of what was meant. I already said that. The internal inconsistency is the pivot and it should not be sidetracked by irrelevant talk.
yes, you finally agreed with me on that after several asinine posts by yourself and several very patient ones by myself explaining it to you... ::)
incorrect omni. it was brought in as a squirm and not a clarification. look at the record you mental midget.
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 08, 2011, 04:28:49 AM
Still playing the fool, I see.
What part of the definitions you have posted do you have trouble understanding? If a "theory" is internally contradictory and does not stick together with what is already known, it's incoherent --- as Lambright's word salad shows quite clearly.
see that little bold word there? that AND modifier... so you see, oh mental midget, i haven't "brought anything back". he never amended it in the first place... ::)
tu stultus es... q.e.d.
ding! ding!
school is in. we are attempting to teach omnibus/troll comprehension and logic today... though it be an exercise in futility.
These are details, like I said. They are to be ironed out in the course of discussing the essence of the problems in the theory. In that course it will become known whether or not that "and" really means that the internal contradictions are not given the dominance, as it should. Because of language there are always all kinds of such points that need clarification and that's why some of the debates are so long. It's all about clarification of meaning between parties, sometimes subtle and full of nuances. For instance, regarding the essence of a scientific theory, since one Karl Popper is so confused what are we to expect from the participants in a humble forum such as this one.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 10:59:50 PM
These are details, like I said. They are to be ironed out in the course of discussing the essence of the problems in the theory. In that course it will become known whether or not that "and" really means that the internal contradictions are not given the dominance, as it should. Because of language there are always all kinds of such points that need clarification and that's why some of the debates are so long. It's all about clarification of meaning between parties, sometimes subtle and full of nuances. For instance, regarding the essence of a scientific theory, since one Karl Popper is so confused what are we to expect from the participants in a humble forum such as this one.
please avoid cluttering up this debate between tinsel koala and myself (not you) with this kind of irrelevant talk.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 08, 2011, 10:35:21 PM
ding! ding!
school is in. we are attempting to teach omnibus/troll comprehension and logic today... though it be an exercise in futility.
Haha. Good luck. It's hard to teach someone who thinks they already know everything.
I, for one, think that, on the contrary, your talk is irrelevant and clutters the thread devoted to discussing a theory. I've already expressed that opinion in several different ways but you're ignoring it and continue with the irrelevances. I'm no advocate of @Tinsel Koala with whom, many are aware, I've had issues in the past. Nevertheless, as a matter of principle, it has to be understood that when a theory is being discussed and in the course of that discussion certain inexactless in the terminology is uttered (as is usually the case) that should not divert the discussion into a talk about semantics and memorized definitions but the scientific discourse should rather continue unperturbed along its main course.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 11:51:48 PM
I, for one, think that, on the contrary, your talk is irrelevant and clutters the thread devoted to discussing a theory. I've already expressed that opinion in several different ways but you're ignoring it and continue with the irrelevances. I'm no advocate of @Tinsel Koala with whom, many are aware, I've had issues in the past. Nevertheless, as a matter of principle, it has to be understood that when a theory is being discussed and in the course of that discussion certain inexactless in the terminology is uttered (as is usually the case) that should not divert the discussion into a talk about semantics and memorized definitions but the scientific discourse should rather continue unperturbed along its main course.
i don't care...because your
opinion is irrelevant to my issue with tinselkoala. mint?
I know, but that's not a discussion. That defies the core essence of a debate.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 09, 2011, 12:00:24 AM
I know, but that's not a discussion. That defies the core essence of a debate.
tu stultus es... you are not necessary for a discussion between tinselkoala and myself. ::)
If that's the case, you should leave this discussion dedicated to a theory and should carry on your discussion somewhere else. That's an elementary rule regarding the hygiene of a scientific debate.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 09, 2011, 12:11:34 AM
If that's the case, you should leave this discussion dedicated to a theory and should carry on your discussion somewhere else. That's an elementary rule regarding the hygiene of a scientific debate.
i'm not in a scientific debate you mental midget... ::) i'm correcting tinselkoala's made up definition of coherent. i'm still waiting on his rebuttal. you're the one wandering off on tangents of logical fallacy and semantics. we've been over this son, try and keep up...
Of course, you're not in a scientific debate. This is exactly what I'm saying. Therefore, you shouldn't be doing it here.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 09, 2011, 12:15:30 AM
Of course, you're not in a scientific debate. This is exactly what I'm saying. Therefore, you shouldn't be doing it here.
and you're not in a scientific debate either... ::) thus, you shouldn't be doing it here... ::)
tu stultus es... q.e.d.
In fact, I am. I'm waiting for @Tinsel Koala to present the internal contradictions in the "theory" under discussion and in the meantime I'm trying to teach you some good manners regarding a scientific discourse.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 09, 2011, 12:29:09 AM
In fact, I am. I'm waiting for @Tinsel Koala to present the internal contradictions in the "theory" under discussion and in the meantime I'm trying to teach you some good manners regarding a scientific discourse.
by calling someone a liar? and then when shown (by the record) that you are completely in error, you refuse to offer a mea culpa? that's how you teach good manners? well, good luck to you with that. ::)