Hi All,
please have a look at this wheel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MikhailDmitriyev
Here is his description to it:
http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/rus/catalog/pages/9367.html
Scroll to the end of the page, where the drawings are.
These drawings are different than his machine with the
electric motors, that pull up weights just at the right moments,
but I find these description pictures much more important.
You have to take into consideration,
that in this pictures:
http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/ris-iz/2543/7.jpg
the balls at 1 to 2 o´clock on the ramp don´t pull down
the wheel.
This has to be changed somehow, so the balls will
glide in a bar somehow, so that the weight of the balls in this position
will still pull on the wheel.
Then it might just work without electric motors inside the machine.
Regards, Stefan.
Fascination, great find!
I see 2 main versions, one where the weight on the left side hang right under their pivot on the rim, and one where they take a shorter radius than the rim.
Seems he used one-way cluches per pivot to allow for movement where required, and restriction elsewhere?
I've posted similar ideas, but won't argue mine where better. Are we actually seeing a working wheel here?
I like how on the left bottom, as in so many designs, the weight are prety much off the wheel, supported by an outside structure. Another ramp in the right top takes them outside. Is energy lost there? Not sure, as the weights do still load the wheel some, even if they most mostly outward, and are supported by another outside structure. If the ramp could give way some and drive the wheel, would that help?
On further thought, the right top ramp might well be using the lateral momentum generated at 12:00, and by offering the weight freedom to move out, just conserve that lateral inertia vector, while gravity kicks in just the same. A weight wants to parabole of course, and the wheel want to circle.
Amazingly simple designs. If it works, we've been stupid for 300 years. As always, it will be interesting to learn why it does NOT work :-)
Well,
does anyone know, how to simulate these
one way clutches pin wheels bearings in
WM2D simulator software ?
If I would know this, I could try to simulate this:
http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/ris-iz/2543/7.jpg
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
I wish I could. But could you not "simply" design one such clutch yourself, and downscale it? Does WM2D have sufficient resolution for that?
@Cloxxki
Yes you can, have a look at :
http://www.koyousa.com/brochures/pdfs/cat113ex%20-%20Miniature%20One-way%20Clutch.pdf
And under WM2d take the figure ....
Obelix
It is my opinion that you are not seeing a working wheel. No matter how much subterfuge you build into the so-called mechanical transference it is still a 'changing height for width' design. Adding an external ramp on the ascent only confirms my opinion.
This design in principle is no different than the Darrel Van Dussen (not sure about the spelling) that was posted on this forum some years ago.
For those who wish to do a 'hands on' build, you can find the one-way bearings here; http://www.mcmaster.com/#one-way-locking-bearings/=4uzu0s
Ralph Lortie
http://arracheenterprise.web.officelive.com/default.aspx
LOL Ralph
I would say it is a cross with Darrel Van Dussen, mine and some others scratch pad from a couple of years ago. I don't see a runner either.
Recently and on another thread I was chastised by the moderator for preaching patent over free sourcing. My response was ignored, so now it is my turn to express my feelings.
I sometimes wonder if he does not dig these worthless designs up, starting new threads knowing full well that they will not work. Its all in the name of creating hits on the forum for the advertising revenue it brings.
When traffic gets slow; wham! we are hit with another so called great new design posted by the moderator. You go figure!
Ralph Lortie
LOL@Ralph
So,
besides all the LOL's here, i am wondering why this setup is
withstanding a WM-simulation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODf49HtCNj0
... just an humble reply to some upcoming arrogance here. ;)
Cheers
Quick and dirty test:
Quote from: Cherryman on January 09, 2010, 01:23:32 PM
Quick and dirty test:
Hi all
Take a look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpnmEUP23t8
The device is the same, and the result is quite different.
WM file here:
http://mikhaildmitriev.com/piramid/T12.wm2d
regards
Now, here's the corrected "quick and dirty" T1.wm2d with motor removed. We see, as expected, no effect.
Same thing with T12.wm2d -- remove the motors and it won't work.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2010, 12:14:27 PM
Same thing with T12.wm2d -- remove the motors and it won't work.
-The motors are used to create a permanently unbalanced state of the system.
-Permanently unbalanced system can rotate with infinite speed (theoretically this limit is speed of light). This speed is limited only by the speed of the motor in practice (as you see in T12...).
-Power required to create an unbalanced state of the system is much less than the power required for its direct motion (rotation).
-There are many ways to create a permanently unbalanced state of the system.
Motor can simulate freewheel (one way rotation).
-The combinations of gravitational and magnetic interactions are very promising as well.
Quote-The motors are used to create a permanently unbalanced state of the system.
This is another way of saying that you're using external energy to create unbalanced state of the system. Such system is not OU. The permanent unbalanced state of the system, causing the wheel to spin, has to be created by the construction itself without spending of any external energy.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 12, 2010, 04:40:28 PM
This is another way of saying that you're using external energy to create unbalanced state of the system. Such system is not OU. The permanent unbalanced state of the system, causing the wheel to spin, has to be created by the construction itself without spending of any external energy.
Is the gravitational force is not an external force relative to the device? Or magnetic force (in devices that use magnetic force)? Or electric ...
Any device can not operate without an external force. Even a car with a gasoline engine will not run in the absence of friction, for example.
Another issue is the ratio of energy output (P out) to the energy expended
(P in). If this ratio is more than 1, this device is certainly consistent with OU.
Gravitational, magnetic and electric forces are external to the device but they are forces, not energy. A running device needs to spend energy, not force. Energy can be produced from force only if there are conditions for this force to cause spontaneous displacement. Spending external energy to give motors so that force of gravity can cause displacement doesn't make that displacement spontaneous -- external energy has been spent for that displacement to occur. That's not an OU machine.
Further, it isn't at all obvious that expended energy is less than the putput energy in the device shown. Experimental data are needed to prove such claim and there are none for this device.
Let me remind you that any amplifier with k>> 1 can easily be transformed into a generator at the expense of positive feedback.
Experimental data for this device are available and are shown in the chart here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgKVnch4pdg
In principle, you can get any output power of a large quantity at any low input power. This should be done via summation of the input actions in the system with a large number of elements . These conditions are provided with design features of the device in question. As example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ_yR_-VMRc
Similarly, even the ants can (hypothetically) to raise the weight of several tons, accumulating counterbalance weight on one grain of sand. My hypothesis construction of the pyramids without using a powerful technique here:
http://mikhaildmitriev.com/piramid/
Please use Google translator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgKVnch4pdg
The above device will only make sense as an OU device if it turns without spending external energy.
Okay. Used to start a car battery is an external or internal source of energy? Perhaps it is permissible to use in OU device?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndlgNkTz_5g
After acceleration to rated speed, amplifier is switched to the generator mode and it uses part of the output energy to maintain the nonequilibrium state of the system. The battery in this mode is not used.
So you agree this it would be OU device?
Yes, in such a case it would be an OU device. Is that what's going on with the device in your video?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 13, 2010, 12:35:08 PM
Yes, in such a case it would be an OU device. Is that what's going on with the device in your video?
Switching into the generator mode is possible when the number of elements (spokes, overrunning clutches, weigth ) is 32 and more as shown here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ_yR_-VMRc
This is done. Also verified the possibility of NdFeB magnets for straightening and for folding of spokes with weight. It works effectively.
I believe that my YouTube channel containing 16 videos
http://www.youtube.com/user/MikhailDmitriyev?feature=mhw4 # p / u
gives full information for anyone wishing to make such a device yourself.
For those who can not or wish not do it yourself exist suitable method for purchasing a detailed description with the calculations, photos and videos. Wait in the markets soon.
What market? Why should anyone buy something based on bogus claims? Claims remain bogus until they are verified by third parties. This seems just another attempt to extract money from gullible people in a series of such recent and not so recent attempts.
What are you talking about?
Ready-to-use devices manufactured industrially will be sold in markets also. If it does not work no one will buy it.
Quote from: dmfed on March 13, 2010, 03:18:20 PM
What are you talking about?
Ready-to-use devices manufactured industrially will be sold in markets also. If it does not work no one will buy it.
Dream on. This and other forums have heard plenty of these lies and hoaxes. Before you prove the validity of your claim it should be considered nothing but a lie. There are established procedures for proving the validity of a claim such as this and you shouldn't think you're the smartest to bypass them. The are fools in this world but not just anybody is a fool.
This is not a dream, this is a reality.
All procedures that you mentioned I have realised, they already passed and done :
- the working model exist;
- the patent received;
- information is freely available to all comers.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 13, 2010, 04:10:51 PM
The are fools in this world but not just anybody is a fool.
People are not fools. They are just misled by the existing representations about the structure of the universe and, theories of gravitation in particular.
I have my own ideas about these subjects. They help me to find unconventional solutions.
Look at one of my articles (in English) on this subject:
http://mikhaildmitriev.com/papers/paper5.doc
Never mind.
To put the point in this thread need to answer just one question:
-what is a ratio of energy consumption in the two following cases?
1) Moves mass m with acceleration a.
2) Moves mass m/32 with the same acceleration a.
I believe that in the second case required energy is 32 times less.
Converse statement would look absurd, even for primary school children.
The key to overunity is the quantization of space-time system parameters (mass and action in particular) and subsequent integration (summation) of the result.
Thank you All for your interest in this topic.
Anyone can build this device for personal use.
I wish you success.
Mikhail Dmitriev
To put an end to this topic one should conclude that while it was good to know there is such an attempt that attempt is sheer nonsense in addition to misunderstanding of basic concepts of physics. It has to be ignored outright.
Hi !
A short comment regarding Dmitriyev's movie on net.
His site is: www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ02MjqBk7s
Really,he has no solution for a self-sustaining torque unbalance,on the same side of the fulcrum (the only one problem of a possible PM ),but there are,in my opinion,some interesting sequences:
-a good fulcrum (0-14 sec.)
-an useful up-down pendulum/eccenter free fall (23-30 sec.)
-a practical free fall of a variable arm (40-62 sec.)
-a limited rotation due to a starting torque unbalance (66-100 sec.)
Regarding these test sequences of the movie,as valuable,maybe,we can employ them,to bring forth some new developments...the first step is to know,the next is to understand.
All the best! / Alex
- Hi !
An additional plain comment about Dmitriyev's movie on net:
-a good fulcrum is not sufficient: the friction must be "paid",anyway...so we must "minimize" the total weight,as much as possible.
-if we want to remove out more useful gravity power,we must increase the free gravity fall ("torque avalanche" ),or the size,dimensions.
These two states of circumstances,require a simultaneous "mini-max" arrangement (see "Wheel vs. lever..." topic).
All the best! / Alex
Hi !
The "key thread" of this wheel begins with Villard,Taccola,da Vinci...
As a matter of fact ,this type of gravity wheel ("patented" by "dmfed" in Russia) ,is an old german "technical inheritance "(around 1712) :see "Maschinen tractate"/MT13 drawing.
It doesn't work.
Why?
Read Bessler's bitter and deceptive comment about "greed"...
Mikhail's "lesson" is that we can make easy simple tests,but a good starting point isn't a guarantee to finish this so long "marathon".
All the best / Alex
Apparently it turns up for 6 years ...
Weights are bearing.
The guides on both sides of the drum.
http://translate.google.pl/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=pl&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eioba.pl%2Fa131345%2Fsilnik_grawitacyjny_a_j
I've created a feature page on this here: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Mikhail_Dmitriev_Gravity_Wheel
Mikhail Dmitriev Gravity Wheel - This Russian inventor has been developing gravity-based power systems for years and says that the design has been widely replicated in Russia, even powering some houses. He says he has posted all necessary information to build the device, in which a small amount of power input generates much greater power output. (PESWiki; January 30, 2011)
I also created an animation.
Quote from: dmfed on March 14, 2010, 04:38:34 AM
This is not a dream, this is a reality.
All procedures that you mentioned I have realised, they already passed and done :
- the working model exist;
...
Where is it? We have to verify it.Wm2d works according to the laws of physics. Therefore it is impossible to simulate a perpetual motion, except by setting conditions with unphysical parameters or by exploiting software bugs (every one having played with wm2d knows that it is possible to modelize virtual pseudo-perpetual machine using the software holes).
I welcome anybody who's keeps their work open source & non-commercial. Dmitriev deserves both my respect & benefit of the doubt when it comes to his claims.
Every time it seems I think of replicating an overunity device, one more pops up that seems all the more appealing. Yet I can't help but wonder, if I were to put this in my car, which direction would the ratchet go best: to get energy from accelerating, or decelerating? Why does it always go back to cars? ::)
Quote from: exnihiloest on January 30, 2011, 06:25:17 AM
Where is it? We have to verify it.
Wm2d works according to the laws of physics. Therefore it is impossible to simulate a perpetual motion, except by setting conditions with unphysical parameters or by exploiting software bugs (every one having played with wm2d knows that it is possible to modelize virtual pseudo-perpetual machine using the software holes).
Wm2d uses constraint based physics, constraints rules are used throughout the simulation to continuously modify velocities and position. One of the main constraint is energy conservation. So wm2d will never show you a violation of conservation of energy if you use rods and pins unless the simulation step size is not low enough.
The only way to verify it is in a real lab.
What is odd is that that video is from October. Surely someone so sure of his design would have built perhaps a better one which does take the power out from the big wheel. It's one thing to show a spinning wheel using a motor, but another to speak of output numbers when there's no generator in sight.
@broli,
While I do agree that to overturn the existing perceptions in science that CoE is inviolable a working perpetuum mobile, replicable by independent parties has to be demonstrated, that is only because of psychological reasons characteristic for the society we live in. If it were for pure scientific reasons, there are already sufficient arguments categorically proving that CoE can be violated even for reasons inherent in the standard theory. Unfortunately, the scientific method is only paid lip service nowadays.
Here's another example of inherent violation of CoE in the standard theoretical physics. CoE in a system is stated by H = T + V = const where H is the total energy of the mechanical system, T is the kinetic anergy and V is the potential energy of that system.
Further, according to the most general equations in classical mechanics, namely, Hamilton's equations, we have partialdH/partialdpi = partialdqi/partialdt and partialdH/partialdqi = -partialdpi/partialdt where pi is the generalized momentum and pi is the generalized coordinate and t is time.
Form the above it follows directly that partialdqi/partialt = 0 and -partialdpi/partialt = 0. Therefore, qi = const and -pi= const.
In other words, in order for Hamilton's equations, which are the equations of motion (that is, equations valid for v =/= 0) to be in effect for a conservative system that system has to be at velocity v = 0, that is, the system must be at rest. Thus, in order for CoE to be in effect the most general equations of motion in mechanics require the system to be at rest.
As seen, the basics of theoretical mechanics don't comply with its own CoE requirement when the system is in motion.
This is just one more example of the fallacies the science ruling today is subjected to. To keep them from becoming widely known there is vigourous propaganda and suppression which knows no limits to intimidation, mockery and manipulation.
@Omnibus .Very interesting post , but could you please state categorically if you think this device is a fraud , or if you think it could work . If you look at all the videos in The article posted in Peswiki news today , you will notice that one version of the device does not have a drive motor . The "flails" that swing the weights are powered by a chain drive from the shaft . This is interesting , because it is obviously an attempt at a looped self runner . If the device is , as claimed about 200% overunity , this could work because a chain drive in good condition can be better than 95% efficient . If that leaves even one watt to spare as output , then we have cracked it . For replicators , there are at least two alternatives to the expensive one way ratchet bearings . One is , cheap ratchet spanners . the other is a bicycle rear hub with freewheel sprocket . If you want to attempt the motor drive version , a car windscreen wiper mech contains a motor with suitable reduction drive gearbox.
Quote from: neptune on January 30, 2011, 11:26:45 AM
@Omnibus .Very interesting post , but could you please state categorically if you think this device is a fraud , or if you think it could work . If you look at all the videos in The article posted in Peswiki news today , you will notice that one version of the device does not have a drive motor . The "flails" that swing the weights are powered by a chain drive from the shaft . This is interesting , because it is obviously an attempt at a looped self runner . If the device is , as claimed about 200% overunity , this could work because a chain drive in good condition can be better than 95% efficient . If that leaves even one watt to spare as output , then we have cracked it . For replicators , there are at least two alternatives to the expensive one way ratchet bearings . One is , cheap ratchet spanners . the other is a bicycle rear hub with freewheel sprocket . If you want to attempt the motor drive version , a car windscreen wiper mech contains a motor with suitable reduction drive gearbox.
I don't know if it's a fraud or not but the whole approach here seems very similar to all these Kapanadze's, Torbay's, Abeling's and what not, trying to wet the appetite of gullible investors or to make others make it (for lack of own funds) and then claim it and so on. If it's a self-runner the guy should go out of his way to help other parties reproduce it. So far I consider it void of any merit as an OU device. The ball is in his court. If we need a "brute force" device with minimal input energy we already have the one by Paul Sprain. That's the best I've seen so far and yet he still needs to not only prove it really is OU but to make it self-sustaining.
Suddenly I smell Bullshit . AS described in my last post , one version has the weights moved by a device chain driven from the shaft . This version obviously failed to work , because if you look at one of his motorised versions , it still has that same sprocket mounted on the main wheel shaft . So why would he dismantle a self sustaining version in order to make a motorised version? That would make as much sense as destroying some diamonds to get carbon to make carbon brushes . He claims that several Russians are powering their homes with it . So why wouldn't one of them bring this technology to Europe and try to make a fortune with it ? Enough Russians find the money to come here to take low paid jobs . If it smells like bullshit it is bullshit . No exceptions . The guy is either deluded , or for reasons beyond me , is lying .
@neptune,
I really like this idea, but like you I am sceptical. For the output claims he has made to sterling, I would have to ask, "where's a video of one that's powering a house?". I think we'll see soon though, because it does look easy to build, and I'm sure someone will replicate soon. On a positive note though, He is open sourcing and seems to not have anything to hide.
@gdez . No one wants to believe this is real more than I do . But wishing does not make it so . Free Energy is not a religion , but is in danger of becoming one . That way lies madness . As always we must wait and see , and wait and wait...
There is a lot of smart, ambitious people on to the free energy movement, and more coming over everyday. I've only been into this free energy suff for about 2-3yrs and it seems that things are moving faster and faster, improving everyday. Just compare it to the egypt thing, when there is enough of us, there will be no stopping it. Just a matter of time.
One of the problems with understanding this device is the fact that stuff gets lost in translation . For instance in the Peswiki News article is the following quote . "For pushing of the weights ,requires a small amount of energy .BELT AND GEAR ON IT IS JUST NOT CAPABLE . I take this to mean that the self looping method with the chain drive was a failure . Was this due to a lack of power from the wheel to displace its own weights , or were there engineering problems beyond the capability of the inventor to solve . we are not told .
Then we are shown some diagrams , presumably from the patent specification . These appear to show the weights being shifted by fixed stationary ramps . This method has been tried a thousand times , and failed [Basically Archer Quinn revisited .
The device is described as a torque amplifier . Not a power amplifier or an energy amplifier . I believe a simple reduction gearbox is a torque amplifier , and am more than willing to be corrected if wrong .
No attempt is made to measur input and output . there is no load , generator or Prony Brake .Without these the whole device becomes a very inneficient slow speed electric motor [5% efficient?] please DISCUSS .
@neptune,
I had the same question about the chain thing and , I thought "why didn't he get the thing going with the small motor, and then just switch from battery to generator?" He seems to have the building skills to do that. And it seems that if his claims were true, he would have seen that right away. I'm not going to write him off just yet, but it seems like he's definitely getting a little far ahead of himself. I'm looking forward to seeing someone credible do a replication, and I can think of a few people that could probably build one of these things in 1 day. One thing i'll give Dimetriev is he seems to have confidence. If I had built one that has his claimed input/output, I think I could have done a more convincing video. What about this 4 stage 50kw one he talks about? I might have went with a video of that. Well, anyway I wish him luck and I'll be watching.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 30, 2011, 09:29:33 AM
...
In other words, in order for Hamilton's equations, which are the equations of motion (that is, equations valid for v =/= 0) to be in effect for a conservative system that system has to be at velocity v = 0, that is, the system must be at rest. Thus, in order for CoE to be in effect the most general equations of motion in mechanics require the system to be at rest.
As seen, the basics of theoretical mechanics don't comply with its own CoE requirement when the system is in motion.
...
Non-sense. 1) Hamilton's equations apply in whatever chosen referential frame. 2) "The system must be at rest" is a statement without meaning if you don't say in which referential (a system is always at rest in its own referential).
I wonder if someone will finally realize that a given weight which is limited to a fixed difference in altitude will not be able to do work. Whatever we try do do in order to make one part of a gravitywheel to work, will do the exact opposite action - trying to stop the wheel. Gravity cannot do work, because it is a permanent force, in one permanent direction. "Permanent" means "no change". No change will ofcourse not do work.
"Drinking birds" is the closest we can get a working gravity wheel - by using the same principles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgoV6Ixa8EI&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgoV6Ixa8EI&feature=related)
Quote from: exnihiloest on February 01, 2011, 04:05:28 AM
Non-sense. 1) Hamilton's equations apply in whatever chosen referential frame. 2) "The system must be at rest" is a statement without meaning if you don't say in which referential (a system is always at rest in its own referential).
You have no clue whatsoever. Restrain from cluttering the thread with nonsense.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 01, 2011, 08:22:02 AM
You have no clue whatsoever. Restrain from cluttering the thread with nonsense.
Yes, you are not allowed to question or make negative remarks about omnibut or his posts. Anyone who does not follow this rule should restrain from cluttering up threads with nonsense or spam.
The sooner everyone realizes this, the better off we all will be.
Quote from: MrMag on February 01, 2011, 01:30:02 PM
Yes, you are not allowed to question or make negative remarks about omnibut or his posts. Anyone who does not follow this rule should restrain from cluttering up threads with nonsense or spam.
The sooner everyone realizes this, the better off we all will be.
The better off you concretely would be if you restrain from being an advocate of anybody uttering gibberish and cluttering the thread with nonsense making it to a appear as truth from the last instance. Mind that.
@all,
On the positive side you will notice the similarites of this wheel to a dual pendulum.
And I agree with Omnibus about questionable things regarding multiple equation
solutions built into a devices Hamiltonian Quaterian representation. Obviously
some major losses in these slapping devices feed positively into wheel momentum
On the down side there is the potential for rotoverter gain that may stick around
for a while. This potential solution is enhanced if one has a lack of success at using
a fully mechanical linked drive.
In short it's the standard status-quo; is wait,wait,wait...
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: Omnibus on February 01, 2011, 01:43:29 PM
The better off you concretely would be if you restrain from being an advocate of anybody uttering gibberish and cluttering the thread with nonsense making it to a appear as truth from the last instance. Mind that.
which is, in point of fact, exactly why you have no advocates... ::)
Who said I need advocates? Try again.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 01, 2011, 04:20:47 PM
Who said I need advocates? Try again.
no one said you need them. ::) what was said is, that is exactly why you don't have any... try again.
What was said by you was nonsense. Try again.
If you've any mechanical inclination, you can see it just won't work. The displacement of the weights is minimal and just looks like it is being driven by motor(s).
Quote from: Omnibus on February 01, 2011, 01:43:29 PM
The better off you concretely would be if you restrain from being an advocate of anybody uttering gibberish and cluttering the thread with nonsense making it to a appear as truth from the last instance. Mind that.
Omnibus problem:
http://tinyurl.com/4h7n5pn
Quote from: exnihiloest on February 02, 2011, 03:25:24 AM
Omnibus problem:
http://tinyurl.com/4h7n5pn
Citing this link will not make you more competent.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 02, 2011, 03:44:18 AM
Citing this link will not make you more competent.
Maybe not, but it does explain a lot about you.
Quote from: MrMag on February 02, 2011, 08:43:24 PM
Maybe not, but it does explain a lot about you.
Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it's a waste of time to justify incompetence by posting such links. In the case at hand it was obvious incompetence, so the such link is obviously out of place and is only aimed as an ad hominem attack.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 02, 2011, 08:53:49 PM
Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it's a waste of time to justify incompetence by posting such links. In the case at hand it was obvious incompetence, so the such link is obviously out of place and is only aimed as an ad hominem attack.
No, I think it does. Aren't you the one that started the ad hominem attack on him? Just because someone doesn't agree with everything the great omnibus says doesn't mean that they are "obviously incompetent"
Quote from: MrMag on February 03, 2011, 01:41:55 AM
No, I think it does. Aren't you the one that started the ad hominem attack on him? Just because someone doesn't agree with everything the great omnibus says doesn't mean that they are "obviously incompetent"
What I said was not about agreeing with someone but pointing out incompetence. There should be no tolerance towards incompetence and pointing out incompetence in no way means ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attack is to start posting irrelevant links in response to criticism for incompetence.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 01:52:28 AM
...
There should be no tolerance towards incompetence and pointing out incompetence in no way means ad hominem attack.
...
Thanks for having confirmed your problem explained at http://tinyurl.com/4h7n5pn . But it was not necessary, everyone understood.
Quote from: exnihiloest on February 03, 2011, 04:35:17 AM
Thanks for having confirmed your problem explained at http://tinyurl.com/4h7n5pn. But it was not necessary, everyone understood.
You keep going with your ad hominem. Instead of attacking people you should try to learn the basics of science before disturbing the discussions with your attacks and incompetence.
Ad hominem attacks are only from omnibus, as it is clearly proved here:
Quote from: exnihiloest
Non-sense. 1) Hamilton's equations apply in whatever chosen referential frame. 2) "The system must be at rest" is a statement without meaning if you don't say in which referential (a system is always at rest in its own referential)
Quote from: omnibus
You have no clue whatsoever. Restrain from cluttering the thread with nonsense.
It follows that omnibus problem is beyond any doubt: http://tinyurl.com/4h7n5pn .
I'm very sorry that medicine is powerless with such cases. :(
Quote from: exnihiloest on February 03, 2011, 04:49:45 AM
Ad hominem attacks are only from omnibus, as it is clearly proved here:
It follows that omnibus problem is beyond any doubt: http://tinyurl.com/4h7n5pn .
I'm very sorry that medicine is powerless with such cases. :(
Like I said, incompetence such as yours should be nipped in the bud. Nipping incompetence such as yours in the bud is by no means ad hominem attack. You are attacking and are continuing to do so. You should stop with your ad hominem attacks.
It's pretty hard to argue with someone who thinks they know everything. He tries to come across as a professional scientific person. But if you question anything he says or disagree with him, he tells you that you are incompetent or cluttering up the thread.
We have seen his type here before. He sort of acts like IST. Every time he was questioned all he came back with was his I know and you don't attitude or, it's too complicated for you to understand.
Omnibus is the same. He throws in a few latin phrases to sound like an intellectual, but it's the same old shit.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 01:52:28 AM
Ad hominem attack is to start posting irrelevant links in response to criticism for incompetence.
incorrect, that would be a different logical fallacy. one known as a red herring... ::) omni, do yourself (and us) a favor and don't get all pretentious about things (logic) you are ignorant of.
now, don't get your panties in a bunch omni, i'm just nipping your incompetence in the bud... ;)
Quote from: MrMag on February 03, 2011, 07:11:19 AM
It's pretty hard to argue with someone who thinks they know everything. He tries to come across as a professional scientific person. But if you question anything he says or disagree with him, he tells you that you are incompetent or cluttering up the thread.
We have seen his type here before. He sort of acts like IST. Every time he was questioned all he came back with was his I know and you don't attitude or, it's too complicated for you to understand.
Omnibus is the same. He throws in a few latin phrases to sound like an intellectual, but it's the same old shit.
You can only talk like this if you had any arguments regarding the issue which started the attack at me. Everybody sees that you're not addressing that issue and are only siding with the attacker to continue the ad hominem. That should stop. Ignorance and incompetence, let alone frivolous attacks such as yours should not rule even in a free forum such as this one.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 07:23:35 AM
incorrect, that would be a different logical fallacy. one known as a red herring... ::) omni, do yourself (and us) a favor and don't get all pretentious about things (logic) you are ignorant of.
now, don't get your panties in a bunch omni, i'm just nipping your incompetence in the bud... ;)
You too should stop misusing logical terminology to assist in ad hominem attacks at me. You should know that relying on winning by numbers (that is, many incompetent attackers gathering together to hound someone's scientific argument) can only be seemingly successful if you don't address the issue with correct scientific arguments.
The issue is the inherent inability of classical mechanics to account for its own principle for conservation of energy and someone intervening with his incompetence to challenge that. The incompetence of that someone consists in his misunderstanding of Hamilton's equations in classical mechanics. It is not the first time that person demonstrates his incompetence in these matters wrapping it up in quasi-scientific talk about reference frames. Talk like that should be immediately confronted for the sake of those who really care about correct scientific arguments. That person was told more than once to restrain from obfuscating the issue by inappropriately intervening with his confused understanding of reference frames but he refuses to stop and one conclusion, in addition to his demonstrating bad manners, is that he deliberately tries to destroy reasonable argumentation leading to scientific justification of overunity. Those who are siding with him in his ad hominem attacks but don't quite understand the essence of scientific argument should know that in doing so they are assisting in the destruction of this forum and the progressive ideas it is trying to promote. The best these individuals should do is restrain from getting into the crossfire. I know that not everyone here is a scientist and there may be other motivations for siding with this or that participant. In this particular case the issue is pretty serious and the mentioned individual is quite destructive (although in a passive aggressive way) to take his actions lightly.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 08:03:18 AM
You too should stop misusing logic to assist in ad hominem attacks at me. You should know that relying on winning by numbers (that is, many incompetent attackers gathering together to hound someone's scientific argument) can only be seemingly successful if you don't address the issue with correct scientific arguments.
The issue is the inherent inability of classical mechanics to account for its own principle for conservation of energy and someone intervening with his incompetence to chalenge that. The incompetence of that someone consists in his misunderstanding of Hamilton's equations in classical mechanics. It is not the first time that person demonstrates his incompetence in these matters wrapping it up in quasi-scientific talk about reference frames. Talk like this should be immediately confronted for the sake of those who really care about correct scientific arguments. That person was told more than once to restrain from obfuscating the issue by inappropriately intervening with his confused understanding of reference frames but he refuses to stop and one conclusion, in addition to his demonstrating bad manners, is that he deliberately tries to destroy reasonable argumentation leading to scientific justification of overunity. Those who are siding with him in his ad hominem attacks but don't quite understand the essence of scientific argument should know that in doing so they are assisting the destruction of this forum and the progressive ideas it is trying to promote. The best these individuals should do is restrain from getting into the crossfire. I know that not everyone here is a scientist and there may be other motivations for siding with this or that participant. In this particular case the issue is pretty serious and the mentioned individual is quite destructive (although in a passive aggressive way) to take his actions lightly.
see, there you go... ::) omni, as i stated in my previous post, i was simply nipping your incompetence in the bud. posting an irrelevant link is a red herring. ad hominem has qualifications and is not always a fallacy... ::)
why don't you actually read, comprehend and get a handle on what the various fallacies are before you start tossing out incorrect pretentious essays?
i've included a little information on what ad hominem is below for your lazy convenience omni...
QuoteArgumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.
The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:
"You claim that atheists can be moral--yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."
This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:
"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."
A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example:
"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."
This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:
"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."
This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."
It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.
from: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem
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.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 08:22:46 AM
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...
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.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 08:54:38 AM
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:
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 01:52:28 AMAd 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.
This Forum Is indistructable!
Bullet proof!
Years and years of this type of stuff has given it very strong muscles!
Chet
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.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 09:17:14 AM
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.
no i am confirming no such thing. and no i shouldn't. and no that IS NOT the issue i have with you as i have stated repeatedly. it may be the issue between you and someone else, but not me. once again since you can't seem to comprehend, you said, and i quote:
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 01:52:28 AMAd hominem attack is to start posting irrelevant links in response to criticism for incompetence.
this was, and still is, incorrect. had you simply said "accusing me of projection is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem", you would have been correct... but you didn't say that, so you are incorrect... capiche?
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 09:17:14 AMAs 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.
i'll ignore the fallacies in your statement and simply request that you post "the real meaning of ad hominem" for us less enlightened ones... ::) furthermore, if you think the definition the whole world adheres to is frivolous, define how and why... ::)
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 09:17:14 AMIn 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.
denied. logical fallacy known as a red herring. you and i are not debating hamilton's equations. in point of fact, i have not brought up hamilton whatsoever other than to explain his irrelevance to this argument you and i are having. your continued attempts to bring him into this argument is just more logical fallacy from you and smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
HHMMMmmmmmmm................
This one is very hard to score?
Chet
Quote from: ramset on February 03, 2011, 09:35:59 AM
HHMMMmmmmmmm................
This one is very hard to score?
Chet
LMFAO!!!!
are you serious chet? ::) omni couldn't even debate a 5th grader effectively...
he would still be posting "spam" as a response to every post he disagreed with had harti not warned him...
Well ,
You do have him on very soft ground!
"ad hominem"
Chet
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 09:40:50 AM
LMFAO!!!!
are you serious chet? ::) omni couldn't even debate a 5th grader effectively...
he would still be posting "spam" as a response to every post he disagreed with had harti not warned him...
That is self-flattering, isn't it? Not the most modest thing to do, I guess.
The real problem, however, is that, as I said, you try to divert the real issue by creating some kind of non-existing issue between me and you, based on something that is a subject to interpretations. You hold on to one of the possible interpretations as the Gospel and try to impose it as the ultimate definition, especially allowing for ad hominem not always to be a fallacy. But it is, as I already explained earlier. Any form and nuance of ad hominem is a fallacy, despite what you think your frivolous definition says.
As for the real issue -- the Hamilton's equations -- equations which are obviously over your head, there's no room for interpretations there. That's the beauty of having a discussion with numbered equations. There's no leeway. And, because of that, dishonesty in a discussion is recognized at once, let alone incompetence, as in the case at hand.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 09:58:09 AM
That is self-flattering, isn't it? Not the most modest thing to do, I guess.
The real problem, however, is that, as I said, you try to divert the real issue by creating some kind of non-existing issue between me and you, based on something that is a subject to interpretations. You hold on to one of the possible interpretations as the Gospel and try to impose it as the ultimate definition, especially allowing for ad hominem not always to be a fallacy. But it is, as I already explained earlier. Any form and nuance of ad hominem is a fallacy, despite what you think your frivolous definition says.
As for the real issue -- the Hamilton's equations -- equations which are obviously over your head, there's no room for interpretations there. That's the beauty of having a discussion with numbered equations. There's no leeway. And, because of that, dishonesty in a discussion is recognized at once, let alone incompetence, as in the case at hand.
well, you are known to guess a lot... ::)
there is no "issue" between us omni... ::) you said, and i quote:
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 01:52:28 AMAd hominem attack is to start posting irrelevant links in response to criticism for incompetence.
this was, and still is, incorrect. had you simply said "accusing me of projection is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem", you would have been correct... but you didn't say that, so you were incorrect... and still are. capiche?
hamilton's equations are
not the topic of the debate between you and i. please cease with repeating this red herring over and over. the incompetence is yours... not even knowing what an ad hominem is.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
"The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not
(in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). "
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/
"It is important to note that the label “ad hominem†is ambiguous,
and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2]
but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]"
i'll repeat my request that you post "the real meaning of ad hominem" for us less enlightened ones since you conveniently omitted that from your reply... ::) furthermore, if you think the definition the whole world adheres to is frivolous and expect us to adhere to the 'omni definition', you will need to define how and why the existing definition is incorrect... as well as actually providing us with your definition. ::)
W.
Quote:[of a quote]
"It is important to note that the label “ad hominem†is ambiguous, and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious."
----------------------------
Your bein Mean W
Stop pickin on The Buss ,Or I'll come over there and Poke you right in your AdhomiNOSE.
Chetty
Quote from: ramset on February 03, 2011, 10:40:43 AM
W.
Quote:[of a quote]
"It is important to note that the label “ad hominem†is ambiguous, and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious."
----------------------------
Your bein Mean W
Stop pickin on The Buss ,Or I'll come over there and Poke you right in your AdhomiNOSE.
Chetty
i'm not picking on the bus... ::) i'm nipping his incompetence in the bud. ohhh chetty, i'm shaking. ;) you know that's a logical fallacy don't you? argumentum ad baculum or appeal to force or fear. ;)
@all, here is another of omni favorite logical fallacy tactics:
Argumentum ad nauseam"This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again until you're sick of hearing it."
like his "spam" replies... or his "you're incompetent" replies... or his "don't post gibberish" replies... etc, ad nauseam... ;)
The area of OU, being disliked by the powers that be, to put it mildly, is infested with agents, zealous activists and plain stupid people and paying attention to each and every irrelevant post they broadcast is a waste of time. Therefore, when spotting such elements the recourse is to signify it by just stating the obvious, namely, that they should not clog the thread with gibberish. Otherwise, you'll fall into playing their game getting into a regime of infinite explanations leading to nowhere. That's exactly what they want. So, cut them out and move on. Now, I paid a little more attention to you because I've seen some sensible posts by you in the past. You, however, lost the current argument and it's time to concede because there are really important things to discuss and further spending time on a lost argument is clearly a waste.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 11:04:19 AM
The area of OU, being disliked by the powers that be, to put it mildly, is infested with agents, zealous activists and plain stupid people and paying attention to each and every irrelevant post they broadcast is a waste of time. Therefore, when spotting such elements the recourse is to signify it by just stating the obvious, namely, that they should not clog the thread with gibberish. Otherwise, you'll fall into playing their game getting into a regime of infinite explanations leading to nowhere. That's exactly what they want. So, cut them out and move on. Now, I paid a little more attention to you because I've seen some sensible posts by you in the past. You, however, lost the current argument and it's time to concede because there are really important things to discuss and further spending time on a lost argument is clearly a waste.
i've lost nothing other than my precious time trying to explain logical fallacies to you... ::) furthermore, i've repeatedly pointed out your error, to which you have provided no cogent rebuttal. in point of fact, the record shows you trying to divert the discussion of your error by use of logical fallacies (red herring, strawman, etc.). it's time you concede
you were in error and move on. hopefully you can refrain from using fallacies as your response in the future, but to be quite honest, i doubt it.
i'll repeat my request that you post "the real meaning of ad hominem" for us less enlightened ones since you conveniently omitted that from your reply... AGAIN. ::) furthermore, if you think the definition the whole world adheres to is frivolous and expect us to adhere to the 'omni definition', you will need to define how and why the existing definition is incorrect... as well as actually providing us with your definition. ::)
No, you are the one, resorting to your own confused understanding of logic, who tries to justify fallacies. A logical argument cannot be constructed based on some random citation from the internet and pronouncing it as the be all and end all, as you're doing. I pointed that to you repeatedly but you fail to comprehend it. There's more to logic, especially in a scientific argument, than you're used to comprehend. Logic isn't some kind of a metaphysical pursuit with notions put in drawers for you to pull out and use. This is especially applicable to notions such as ad hominem, subject to subtleties way beyond your comprehension, obviously. So, yes, you lost that argument and hopefully you could learn something from it, namely, not to use mechanically definitions from random sites on the net. Learning by heart words such as 'red herring', 'argumentum ad nauseam' etc. and using them with the intention to appear more learned doesn't mean you understand their real meaning. You've heard bits and pieces about such 'elevated' words and have decided you can use them indiscriminately so that you can win arguments more easily. No you can't, as it became obvious. So, in my usual tone (I already explained why I do that) I have to tell you, restrain from cluttering threads with your gibberish because in this way you're destroying the discussions there in this way. Discussions can be destroyed not only by incompetent people, such as the one already mentioned, blabbering but in many other ways, including by know-it-all's such as you trying to appear learned but in fact only demonstrating their shallow thinking.
W,Quote,
you know that's a logical fallacy don't you? argumentum ad baculum or appeal to force or fear.
---------------------------
AHhh.True
Only works in close quarter arguements,and then only briefly!
But if we were all in the same room?somebody would try it! ;D [we need a toothless smiley guy]
Chetty
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 11:31:59 AM
No, you are the one, resorting to your own confused understanding of logic, who tries to justify fallacies. A logical argument cannot be constructed based on some random citation from the internet and pronouncing it as the be all and end all, as you're doing. I pointed that to you repeatedly but you fail to comprehend it. There's more to logic,especially in a scientific argument, than you're used to comprehend. Logic isn't some kind of a metaphysical pursuit with notions put in drawers for you to pull out and use. This is especially applicable to notions such as ad hominem, subject to subtleties way beyond your comprehension, obviously. So, yes, you lost that argument and hopefully you could learn something from it, namely, not to use mechanically definitions from random sites on the net. Learning by heart words such as 'red herring', 'ad nauseam' etc. and using them with the intention to appear more learned doesn't mean you understand their real meaning. You've heard bits and pieces about such 'elevated' words and have decided you can use them indiscriminately so that you can win arguments more easily. No you can't, as it became obvious. So, in my usual tone (I already explained why I do that) I have to tell you, restrain from cluttering threads with your gibberish because in this way you're destroying the discussions there in this way. Discussions can be destroyed not only by incompetent people, such as the one already mentioned, blabbering but in many other ways, including by know-it-all's such as you trying to appear learned but in fact only demonstrating their shallow thinking.
i'll repeat my request that you post "the real meaning of ad hominem" for us less enlightened ones since you conveniently omitted that from your reply...
AGAIN, for the fourth time. ::) furthermore, if you think the definition the whole world adheres to is frivolous and expect us to adhere to the 'omni definition', you will need to define how and why the existing definition is incorrect... as well as actually providing us with your definition. ::)
You're wrong. That is not a definition the whole world adheres to. The definition you cited came from a random site and you, not the whole world, chose to adhere to. As to what more there could be in ad hominem there was an explanation I already gave. Go back, read it again and get the answer to your question. Repeating the question over and over again doesn't mean I haven't already answered it.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 11:40:29 AM
You're wrong. That is not a definition the whole world adheres to. The definition you cited came from a random site and you, not the whole world, chose to adhere to. As to what more there could be in ad hominem there was an explanation I already gave. Go back, read it again and get the answer to your question. Repeating the question over and over again doesn't mean I haven't already answered it.
omni... ::) the record shows i posted
4, that's FOUR links regarding the logical fallacy known as ad hominem. i even quoted the relevant part of the definition under EACH link to rebut your erroneous claim that all ad hominems are fallacious. if your lazy convenience requires it i will link you those posts... does your lazy convenience require it? apparently...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem
"
It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
"The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not
(in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). "
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/
"It is important to note that the label “ad hominem†is ambiguous,
and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2]
but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]"
furthermore, you have yet to post your definition... ::)
so, i'll repeat my request that you post "the real meaning of ad hominem" for us less enlightened ones since you conveniently omitted that from your reply...
AGAIN, for the fifth time. ::) and finally, if you think the definition the whole world adheres to is frivolous and expect us to adhere to the 'omni definition', you will need to define how and why the existing definition is incorrect... as well as actually providing us with your definition...
you have yet to do either, even after being asked for such repeatedly. ::)
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.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 12:03:36 PM
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:
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 01:52:28 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 12:19:48 PM
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"...
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.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 12:36:30 PM
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.
more logical fallacy from the master... ::) this one is known as bifurcation or false dichotomy. this is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities...
In the case of Karl Popper, it is obvious that he didn't quite understand the theory he was subjecting to his falsifiability criterion, he relied on others to tell him that was really a theory, and just mindlessly went ahead and mechanically made pronouncements based on what he considers a criterion.
In a way we're meeting with a similar situation here reading our friend's rants here. That is an example of the damage the education based on phony gurus such as Karl Popper has done on some otherwise enthusiastic about science folks.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 12:44:58 PM
more logical fallacy from the master... ::) this one is known as bifurcation or false dichotomy. this is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities...
Well, I may stand corrected on that. I'm curious what more options there could be in addition to Karl Popper's mediocrity or deliberate conspiracy to destroy scientific thought (saying that it may be both seems redundant). That's a worthwhile discussion.
Omni
I am starting to question if you really understand what you have read when you cannot grasp the simple understanding of "the real meaning of ad hominem"
Quote from: MrMag on February 03, 2011, 01:32:24 PM
Omni
I am starting to question if you really understand what you have read when you cannot grasp the simple understanding of "the real meaning of ad hominem"
Indeed, the meaning of ad hominem is simple, without the obfuscations of our friend.
Understand, every time anyone attacks your character instead of the argument is ad hominem. It's that simple. The attack at you character may be blatant or very subtle, say, by providing links aimed at denigrating your character, it's ad hominem. Ad hominem is also when the attack is passively aggressive, condescending or seemingly polite.
On the other hand, characterizing someone as incompetent when he is trying to shoot down argument with incompetence is not ad hominem. That's a proper reaction in a discussion. It would be ad hominem if he was called incompetent but he actually isn't. That isn't the case in the discussion at hand.
So, see, things are really simple but some need to complicate and obfuscate them so that they can hide their intellectual weakness behind a barrage of empty words.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 01:41:49 PM
Understand, every time anyone attacks your character instead of the argument is ad hominem. It's that simple. The attack at you character may be blatant or very subtle, say, by providing links aimed at denigrating your character, it's ad hominem. Ad hominem is also when the attack is passively aggressive, condescending or seemingly polite.
ok that definition i can agree with except for the last sentence (which is completely incorrect)... even though all you did was parrot the definition of ad hominem from the 4 links i posted earlier. the error in your last sentence is due to the fact that i can be "passively aggressive, condescending or seemingly polite" while still providing a cogent rebuttal to your argument... thank you for finally tacitly admitting that you were wrong when you stated:
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 01:52:28 AM
Ad hominem attack is to start posting irrelevant links in response to criticism for incompetence.
now on to your second error... weren't you previously arguing that ALL ad hominems are fallacious?
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 01:41:49 PMOn the other hand, characterizing someone as incompetent when he is trying to shoot down argument with incompetence is not ad hominem. That's a proper reaction in a discussion. It would be ad hominem if he was called incompetent but he actually isn't. That isn't the case in the discussion at hand.
this is in direct contradiction to your previous paragraph. furthermore, it is not a 'proper' reaction in a discussion. if you call someone incompetent and repeatedly refuse to address their argument or point, that is a logical fallacy. ANYTIME you refuse to accept to opponents position and refute it with a cogent argument you are engaging in logical fallacy.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 01:41:49 PMSo, see, things are really simple but some need to complicate and obfuscate them so that they can hide their intellectual weakness behind a barrage of empty words.
indeed. and this is why you continually refuse to provide cogent responses to peoples objections and instead engage in logical fallacies... ::)
All ad hominem attacks are fallacies. The exception I mentioned I explicitly stated isn't ad hominem.
You may see similar ridiculousness regarding, say, petitio principii claiming that the statement itself is true. This is splitting hairs and is just obfuscating the matter. That's why you have to think with your own head and not take it as dogma on what somebody (even authority) has written.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 02:00:34 PM
All ad hominem attacks are fallacies. The exception I mentioned I explicitly stated isn't ad hominem.
incorrect. i have shown you numerous times why this IS NOT the case. you have provided nothing to support your view... your "exception" was pointed out to be incorrect and a cogent rebuttal was offered.
the rest of your post was irrelevant and does not deserve a response.
@all,
to see how delusional omni is, simply google 'ad hominem' and see how many definitions you find that say ad hominem is not always fallacious (my stance) and how many say ad hominem is ALWAYS fallacious (omni's erroneous stance). look!! here's another one:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem
"Ad Hominem is
not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument.
For instance, the argument may depend on its presenter's claim that he's an expert."
and another!!!!
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
"The
mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there."
Read carefully what you've posted and try to understand it. It is what I claim and not you: The personal attack must be aimed at undermining the claim and someone's expertise is not legitimately questioned. Otherwise it isn't ad hominem. All ad hominem attacks are fallacious. Mere personal attacks that don't aim at undermining the claim or are legitimately questioning the expertise of the oponent are not ad hominem. Is that so difficult to comprehend?
Reading this thread turned out to be a bad idea, especially the last half dozen pages - that's 20 minutes I'll never get back !
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 02:43:29 PM
Read carefully what you've posted and try to understand it. It is what I claim and not you: The personal attack must be aimed at undermining the claim and someone's expertise is not legitimately questioned. Otherwise it isn't ad hominem. All ad hominem attacks are fallacious. Mere personal attacks that don't aim at undermining the claim or are legitimately questioning the expertise of the oponent are not ad hominem. Is that so difficult to comprehend?
tu stultus es... q.e.d.
why do think some instances of ad hominem are allowed in court? because certain instances of ad hominem ARE NOT fallacious... they are however, still ad hominem. ::)
That's ridiculous. We're not discussing court proceedings. Court proceedings have different rules than the rules during scientific discourse. In a scientific discourse the goal is the objective truth (as in the continental law which is not the law of the precedent in the states). In the states the objective truth has no meaning in court. All that matters there is the precedent and the opinions of the peers. Thus, all the law in the states is taylored to satisfy those requirements, not to seek the objective truth. You are totally confused. Never mix court proceedings in the states with scientific discourse. Never.
That mixup explains why your thinking is so muddled as far as logic goes.
Quote from: fletcher on February 03, 2011, 02:50:23 PM
Reading this thread turned out to be a bad idea, especially the last half dozen pages - that's 20 minutes I'll never get back !
Don't blame me for that.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 03:10:18 PM
That's ridiculous. We're not discussing court proceedings. Court proceedings have different rules than the rules during scientific discourse. In a scientific discourse the goal is the objective truth (as in the continental law which is not the law of the precedent in the states). In the states the objective truth has no meaning in court. All that matters there is the precedent and the opinions of the peers. Thus, all the law in the states is taylored to satisfy those requirements, not to seek the objective truth. You are totally confused. Never mix court proceedings in the states with scientific discourse. Never.
That mixup explains why your thinking is so muddled as far as logic goes.
you're ridiculous... there are no "different rules" in logic. ::) you are totally confused, you don't understand what a cogent argument is... a cogent argument is a cogent argument whether it be presented in scientific circles or judicial circles.
again, tu stultus es... q.e.d
Oh, and, by the way, you probably prefer to be held hostage to Mikhail Dmitriyev's unsustained fantasies?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 03:14:27 PM
you're ridiculous... there are no "different rules" in logic. ::) you are totally confused, you don't understand what a cogent argument is... a cogent argument is a cogent argument whether it be presented in scientific circles or judicial circles.
again, tu stultus es... q.e.d
That is completely wrong as it concerns the judicial system in the states. You are the confused one. I repeat, the goal of a court proceeding in the states is not the search for the objective truth and that shapes the way argumentation is presented. It is totally different from scientific argumentation aimed at establishing nothing else but the objective truth.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 03:15:17 PM
Oh, and, by the way, you probably prefer to be held hostage to Mikhail Dmitriyev's unsustained fantasies?
i would imagine so. i doubt he came to a thread titled "Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev" to hear your ridiculous notions on logical fallacies... ::)
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 03:20:16 PM
That is completely wrong as it concerns the judicial system in the states. You are the confused one. I repeat, the goal of a court proceeding in the states is not the search for the objective truth and that shapes the way argumentation is presented. It is totally different from scientific argumentation aimed at establishing nithing else but the objective truth.
you are totally confused and your response is irrelevant. the logic used in debating in either is one and the same... if you can demonstrate that a different system of logic is being used, then have at it, otherwise just shut up. repeating your assertion over an over does not make it true.
again tu stultus es... q.e.d.
Even the finding of clear evidence can be dismissed in court if the finding wasn't done according to certain rules of reasonable grounds for the search.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 03:21:54 PM
you are totally confused and your response is irrelevant. the logic used in debating in either is one and the same... if you can demonstrate that a different system of logic is being used, then have at it, otherwise just shut up. repeating your assertion over an over does not make it true.
again tu stultus es... q.e.d.
No, it isn't. All the evidence and all the logic may point to the culprit and the jury may decide not guilty. The jury's decision (the decision of the peers) constitutes the thruth not what the truth objectively is. Educate yourself first about these differences and then come here to argue anout logic.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 03:24:44 PM
Even the finding of clear evidence can be dismissed in court if the finding wasn't done according to certain rules of reasonable grounds for the search.
of course it can be. but that does not dismiss the validity of the logic used... or make it of a different type. you should really let go of this strawman fallacy you are now using... ::)
again, tu stultus es... q.e.d.
you can have the last word omni. i won't be responding to your replies unless you post a cogent argument...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 03:20:48 PM
i would imagine so. i doubt he came to a thread titled "Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev" to hear your ridiculous notions on logical fallacies... ::)
You have it all in reverse. You are the one trying to impose your ridiculous notions in logical falacies. You started that senseless discussion and I'm trying to educate you a little no matter how impenetrable your system of confused notions is.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 03:32:27 PM
of course it can be. but that does not dismiss the validity of the logic used... or make it of a different type. you should really let go of this strawman fallacy you are now using... ::)
again, tu stultus es... q.e.d.
you can have the last word omni. i won't be responding to your replies unless you post a cogent argument...
Not so. The logic in court proceedings here is specific and it is geared to the fact that the goal is not to find the objective truth but to convince a group of peers. That logic differs from the logic used in scientific debates where the goal is solely the objective truth with no societal interferences. I told you that already but you're not hearing it that's why I have to repeat it.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 03:29:09 PM
No, it isn't. All the evidence and all the logic may point to the culprit and the jury may decide not guilty. The jury's decision (the decision of the peers) constitutes the thruth not what the truth objectively is. Educate yourself first about these differences and then come here to argue anout logic.
you are confusing 'rules of judgement' or 'rules of sentencing' with rules of logic. logic is logic. the fact that juries have sentencing guidelines is not a substantiation that a different logic is being used.
again tu stultus es... q.e.d
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 03:43:39 PM
Not so. The logic in court proceedings here is specific and it is geared to the fact that the goal is not to find the objective truth but to convince a group of peers. That logic differs from the logic used in scientific debates where the goal is solely the objective truth with no societal interferences. I told you that already but you're not hearing it that's why I have to repeat it.
please enumerate the differences...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 03:47:29 PM
you are confusing 'rules of judgement' or 'rules of sentencing' with rules of logic. logic is logic. the fact that juries have sentencing guidelines is not a substantiation that a different logic is being used.
again tu stultus es... q.e.d
No, that's wrong. The whole procedure is specific, not only parts of it. Otherwise it will not be self consistent. The very way the evidence is presented to the jury, including the underlying logic is specific, differing from the presentation of scientific evidence in a scientific debate and the way conclusions are drawn from that evidence. These are completely different activities. Science is objective and, like I said, unlike jurisprudence has no societal elements in it (true science, of course).
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 03:53:35 PM
No, that's wrong. The whole procedure is specific, not only parts of it. Otherwise it will not be self consistent. The very way the evidence is presented to the jury, including the underlying logic is specific, differing from the presentation of scientific evidence in a scientific debate and the way conclusions are drawn from that evidence. These are completely different activities. Science is objective and, like I said, unlike jurisprudence has no societal elements in it (true science, of course).
then simply enumerate the differences... or continue with your current strawman fallacy... ::)
again, tu stultus es... q.e.d.
Of course, under science here I understand hard sciences which recognize only one truth about a phenomenon. Soft sciences such as jurisprudence, politics, sociology, psychology etc. have a very diffuse understanding of truth and the logic for establishing it is different from the logic in hard sciences where truth is the dictator. In soft sciences the different social groups have their own truths about a single phenomenon and these truths are allowed to coexist otherwise the society will fall apart. In hard sciences, on the contrary, truth is unitary and it underlies a totalitarian system par excellence. There's no democracy in hard sciences.
The closest of the soft sciences to the hard sciences is the continental European law while the American jurisprudence differs quite a bit, as explained.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 04:00:09 PM
Of course, under science here I understand hard sciences which recognize only one truth about a phenomenon. Soft sciences such as jurisprudence, politics, sociology, psycology etc. have a very diffuse understanding of truth and the logic for establishing it is different from the logic in hard sciences where truth is the dictator. In soft sciences the different social groups have their own truths about a single phenomenon and these truths are allowed to coexist otherwise the society will fall apart. In hard sciences, on the contrary, truth is unitary and it underlies a totalitarian system par excellence. There's no democracy in hard sciences.
THEN SIMPLY ENUMERATE THE DIFFERENCES!
show me how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive reasoning) of logic is used in a court case... ::)
again, tu stultus es... q.e.d.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 04:04:04 PM
THEN SIMPLY ENUMERATE THE DIFFERENCES!
show me how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive arguments) of logic is used in a court case... ::)
again, tu stultus es... q.e.d.
We have to get into specifics to do that but usually deductive reasoning is discouraged in court while it may be acceptable scientifically, roughly speaking. Don't forget you have political correctness and so on and so forth and some topics, topics which scientifically would be discussed freely without a problem, are never the subject of discussion in nowadays politically correct soft sciences, let alone in court.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 04:11:16 PM
We have to get into specifics to do that but usually deductive reasoning is discouraged in court while it may be acceptable scientifically, roughly speaking. Don't forget you have political correctness and so on and so forth and some topics, topics which scientifically would be discussed freely without a problem, are never the subject of discussion in nowadays politically correct soft sciences, let alone in court.
then quit stalling and let's get into the specifics. show me how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive arguments) of logic is used in a court case (that would be what a cogent response would contain)... or continue with your strawman arguments... why do i have to ask you 4+ times everytime a simple response has been requested of you?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 04:15:28 PM
then quit stalling and let's get into the specifics. show me how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive arguments) of logic is used in a court case... or continue with your strawman arguments... why do i have to ask you 4+ times to get a simple response out of you?
No, that's for you to figure out. I'm only giving you directions where to look.
EDIT: I meant inductive reasoning is discouraged in the soft sciences, that is reasoning which would project traits observed in individual entities onto a group. Generalizations of this sort are frowned upon in soft sciences. Not in hard sciences where it may be entirely legit.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 04:21:11 PM
No, that's for you to figure out. I'm only giving you directions where to look.
EDIT: I meant inductive reasoning is discouraged in the soft sciences, that is reasoning which would project traits observed in individual entities onto a group. Generalizations of this sort are frowned upon in soft sciences. Not in hard sciences where it may be entirely legit.
i'll accept that as
another tacit admission that you cannot provide a cogent reply... ::)
still keeping score chet? that's another loss for omni in case you lost track...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 04:22:55 PM
i'll accept that as another tacit admission that you cannot provide a cogent reply... ::)
still keeping score chet? that's another loss for omni in case you lost track...
No, that's not your win because I gave you ample set of examples about the differences in approach. As for the concrete cases it's up to you to look for such and I'm not admitting anything in telling you this. That's another example of your flawed thinking -- wishing the imagined to be real.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 04:30:37 PM
No, that's not your win because I gave you ample set of examples about the differences in approach. As for the concrete cases it's up to you to look for such and I'm not admitting anything in telling you this. That's another example of your flawed thinking -- wishing the imagined to be real.
yes it is my win, and no, you didn't give any examples of a different type of logic being used. which is exactly why it is my win... ::)
your tacit admission has already been accepted. if/when you can show how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive reasoning) of logic is used in a court case, then your tacit admission will be allowed to be withdrawn.
i've repeatedly asked you to show some, ANY evidence of your claim... you cannot, so you refuse.
These very serious flaws in thinking, an example of which we see demonstrated by our friend, overwhelming among the representatives of the soft sciences in concert with the dishonesty of the very few competent in the hard sciences make it so that society is conditioned to accept violation of CoE only if it sees a self-sustaining device. Under normal conditions, provided sciences functioned according to the scientific method (a method they only pay lip service to nowadays) violation of CoE would heve been accepted in the mainstream long ago. There are categorical proofs for CoE violation which should already be in the standard literature used in colleges and universities. And what's even worse, the direct practical application of already discovered machines producing excess energy, hasn't yet found its place in the radar screens of the R&D labs, conditioned by the severe suppression of this important finding through propaganda and intimidadation. And, of course, aided by the deliberately muddled thinking of the scientific part of society, as mentioned.
You repeatedly asked me about something I already repeatedly answered. I know you want very much the win to be yours but it isn't, unfortunately.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 04:40:32 PM
These very serious flaws in thinking, an example of which we see demonstrated by our friend, overwhelming among the representatives of the soft sciences in concert with the dishonesty of the very few competent in the hard sciences make it so that society is conditioned to accept violation of CoE only if it sees a self-sustaining device. Under normal conditions, provided sciences functioned according to the scientific method (a method they only pay lip service nowadays) violation of CoE would heve been accepted in the mainstream long ago. There are categorical proofs for CoE violation which should already be in the standard literature used in colleges and universities. And what's even worse, the direct practical application of already discovered machines producing excess energy, hasn't yet found its place in the radar screens of the R&D labs, conditioned by the severe suppression of this important finding through propaganda and intimidadation. And, of course, aided by the deliberately muddled thinking of the scientific part of society, as mentioned.
these very serious flaws in thinking demonstrated in this thread (and others) by omnibus are par for his course. cogent arguments are rarely supplied in rebuttal to another persons point(s) and are instead supplanted by a wild variety of logical fallacies. when called on this, he retreats to his favorite fallacy of all argumentum ad nauseam, where he repeats the same thing over and over till you are sick of hearing it.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 04:48:50 PM
these very serious flaws in thinking demonstrated in this thread (and others) by omnibus are par for his course. cogent arguments are rarely supplied in rebuttal to another persons point(s) and are instead supplanted by a wild variety of logical fallacies. when called on this, he retreats to his favorite fallacy of all argumentum ad nauseam, where he repeats the same thing over and over till you are sick of hearing it.
No, a person like you who has clearly demonstrated muddled thinking cannot utter such judgements. It's obviously preposterous and untrue. Of course, you have no restraint and you have to be constantly reminded of that, despite your love for the word 'cogent'. That word and your thinking are not friends despite your impression to the contrary.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 04:45:47 PM
You repeatedly asked me about something I already repeatedly answered. I know you want very much the win to be yours but it isn't, unfortunately.
you sir, are a liar. you haven't shown how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive reasoning) of logic is used in a court case... ::) the win is mine albeit not one i am proud of... not much competition from the likes of you, who refuses to present a cogent rebuttal.
Oh, by the way, whatever happened to the other possibilities for the flawed Karl Popper's logic? One was his mediocrity, the other was deliberate conspiracy to destroy science. Our friend said I've committed logical fallacy because there are other possibilities. What are they?
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 05:05:23 PM
Oh, by the way, whatever happened to the other possibilities for the flawed Karl Popper's logic? One was his mediocrity, the other was deliberate conspiracy to destroy science. Our friend said I've committed logical fallacy because there are other possibilities. What are they?
denied, your pathetic attempt at a strawman argument has been noted. even more pathetic is that you used a previous logical fallacy as a segue into this one... ::)
tell you what, you show how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive reasoning) of logic is used in a court case, and i'll be your huckleberry on the popper fallacy.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 05:02:17 PM
you sir, are a liar. you haven't shown how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive reasoning) of logic is used in a court case... ::) the win is mine albeit not one i am proud of... not much competition from the likes of you, who refuses to present a cogent rebuttal.
Well, so much for ad hominem attqck. Here it is, par excellence. I'm not to blame that you don't understand the explanations I gave for the differences.
Thus, your win is only in your imagination.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 05:08:49 PM
Well, so much for ad hominem attqck. Here it is, par excellence. I'm not to blame that you don't understand the explanations I gave for the differences.
yet it is not fallacious, because you are a liar, you gave no differences in logic, as evidenced by the record. which according to you obviates it from being ad hominem.... ::)
so which is it omniboy?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 05:07:50 PM
denied, your pathetic attempt at a strawman argument has been noted. even more pathetic is that you used a previous logical fallacy as a segue into this one... ::)
tell you what, you show how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive reasoning) of logic is used in a court case, and i'll be your huckleberry on the popper fallacy.
Aha, so there are no more options than the ones I listed. That's what I thought. What else is new, our friend blabbers something and then forgets what he really meant. But that's his style, we know that already. Just don't pay too much attention to him.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 05:14:00 PM
Aha, so there are no more options than the ones I listed. That's what I thought. What else is new, our friend blabbers something and then forgets what he really meant. But that's his style, we know that already.
LMFAO! you didn't list any! what is the post number where you listed these? or are you referring to your popper fallacy?
and let me make something overwhelmingly clear since you don't know me son, you and i are not friends, nor will we be. i despise people like you who eschew logic and reason.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 05:11:06 PM
yet it is not fallacious, because you are a liar, you gave no differences in logic, as evidenced by the record. which according to you obviates it from being ad hominem.... ::)
so which is it omniboy?
You say this because you want it to be so. But it isn't. Anybody may go back and read what I said about the differences. So yours is a genuine ad hominem. This a fact, yours is wishful thinking.
HHMMMMmm.
We're bringing in the experts on this one.
But I think W has achieved OU. This Tag team will most definately go on Forever,and It seems that W can't control it,he's trying to engage
the heavies in the Cold electricity thread.
Could be a Runaway cascade event.............
Chetty
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 05:18:46 PM
You say this because you want it to be so. But it isn't. Anybody may go back and read what I said about the differences. So yours is a genuine ad hominem. This a fact, yours is wishful thinking.
yeah let us see what you wrote...
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 01:41:49 PM
On the other hand, characterizing someone as incompetent when he is trying to shoot down argument with incompetence is not ad hominem. That's a proper reaction in a discussion. It would be ad hominem if he was called incompetent but he actually isn't. That isn't the case in the discussion at hand.
so by your 'logic' and i am using that word in its loosest sense here... characterizing someone as a liar when they have lied is not ad hominem because that's the proper reaction in a discussion... as per the great omnibus.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 05:15:38 PM
LMFAO! you didn't list any! what is the post number where you listed these? or are you referring to your popper fallacy?
and let me make something overwhelmingly clear since you don't know me son, you and i are not friends, nor will we be. i despise people like you who eschew logic and reason.
Logic and reason is what is wanting in you, as is obvious from the exchange so far but I'm a gentleman enough to not despise you for those defficiencies of yours, although I don't know where their origin is, is it because of your very nature or because of the choppy education you were subjected to. Either way, it isn't pleasant to converse with a confused individual such as you but on the other hand it is nothing but noble to put an effort to straighten out confused thinking. That's how I feel and that's why I'm still continuing this exchange. Some readers may find it interesting too.
Quote from: ramset on February 03, 2011, 05:21:46 PM
HHMMMMmm.
We're bringing in the experts on this one.
But I think W has achieved OU. This Tag team will most definately go on Forever,and It seems that W can't control it,he's trying to engage
the heavies in the Cold electricity thread.
Could be a Runaway cascade event.............
Chetty
you got it wrong chetty, it's simply that i can hold off people like omni engaging in logical fallacies on multiple fronts and sometimes choose to do so. speaking of, you ever get around to that little exercise i laid out for you awhile back? your 'placebo logic'... remember? i do... ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 05:23:42 PM
yeah let us see what you wrote...so by your 'logic' and i am using that word in its loosest sense here... characterizing someone as a liar when they have lied is not ad hominem because that's the proper reaction in a discussion... as per the great omnibus.
When they lied yes, but when they didn't lie, as is the case, it is clear ad hominem. Confusion, confusion, that's what you're suffering from.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 05:26:14 PM
Logic and reason is what is wanting in you, as is obvious from the exchange so far but I'm a gentleman enough to not despise you for those defficiencies of yours, although I don't know where their origin is, is it because of your very nature or because of the choppy education you were subjected to. Either way, it isn't pleasant to converse with a confused individual such as you but on the other hand it is nothing but noble to put an effort to straighten out confused thinking. That's how I feel and that's why I'm still continuing this exchange. Some readers may find it interesting too.
more fallacies from the master! imagine that! ::) omni,
you know nothing of my education... and again you engage in bifurcation or false dichotomy.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 05:29:48 PM
more fallacies from the master! imagine that! ::) omni, you know nothing of my education... and again you engage in bifurcation or false dichotomy.
I see the results, though, and they are not to brag about.
Let's be noble -- blame it on your education because to be so confused by nature is even more embarrassing.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 05:28:43 PM
When they lied yes, but when they didn't lie, as is the case, it is clear ad hominem. Confusion, confusion, that's what you're suffering from.
you did lie. the record shows this. if you want to prove me wrong, simply quote your post where you show how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive reasoning) of logic is used in a court case... ::)
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 05:31:46 PM
I see the results, though, and they are not to brag about.
i rather prefer it over your training in logical fallacy, it is abundantly obvious that you certainly have spent years of hard work and dedication in pursuit of that education...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 05:32:57 PM
you did lie. the record shows this. if you want to prove me wrong, simply quote your post where you show how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive reasoning) of logic is used in a court case... ::)
I said inductive logic is discouraged in soft sciences while it may be acceptable in hard sciences, didn't I? That's just an example. A telling one. Is that a small difference in using logic?
So, now, who's the liar?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 05:34:59 PM
i rather prefer it over your training in logical fallacy, it is abundantly obvious that you certainly have spent years of hard work and dedication in pursuit of that education...
Look who's talking.
When Sister Mary alice gets back, your both gonna get the ruler across the knuckle treatment!,and maybe the old Adhomiwhip across the buttocks!
She's gonna have some sledgeucatin for the two of you!
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 05:39:02 PM
I said inductive logic is discouraged in soft sciences while it may be acceptable in hard sciences, didn't I? That's just an example. A telling one. Is that a small difference in using logic?
So, now, who's the liar?
no, no, no. you are changing the premise now... ::) is ad hoc your new favorite fallacy?
I SAID "show how and where a different type (
a type that does not use inductive or deductive reasoning) of logic is used in a court case..." ::) i said this because you claimed that the logic used in a court of law was different from the logic used in science... tu stultus es... q.e.d.
see that emphasized part? what part of that don't you comprehend?
Accepting multiple truths about a phenomenon is just fine for soft sciences while mandating a single truth anout a phenomenon in hards science. Didn't I give that as a difference in logic and reasoning? Is that a small difference?
And, finally, again, who's the liar?
In view of the above if you have even a trace of self-respect you will not allow yourself to continue to embarrass yourself and will stop posting on this subject.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 05:43:50 PM
Accepting multiple truths about a phenomenon is just fine for soft sciences while mandating a single truth anout a phenomenon in hards science. Didn't I give that as a difference in logic and reasoning? Is that a small difference?
And, finally, again, who's the liar?
we were talking about a different type of logic being used in science versus courts of law. what you just stated is not a "difference" in the context you opened with... you brought up this erroneous idea of "different logic" as a strawman argument back then remember? you were avoiding my other questions... ::) can you demonstrate how a court case can use some other type of logic than deductive or inductive reasoning? NO YOU CAN'T! which is why you have been dragging this out for 5+pages now. it is just a pathetic attempt at obfuscation via various and repeated logical fallacies until no one but me recalls what was the original point of contention.
you are the liar... still.
OK, substitute 'soft sciences' by 'court of law'. Same thing. I just wanted to stated it more generally.
Quote from: ramset on February 03, 2011, 05:40:00 PM
When Sister Mary alice gets back, your both gonna get the ruler across the knuckle treatment!,and maybe the old Adhomiwhip across the buttocks!
She's gonna have some sledgeucatin for the two of you!
@ramst,
You scared me out of my wits. What shall I do now?
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 05:48:36 PM
OK, substitute 'soft sciences' by 'court of law'. Same thing. I just wanted to stated it more generally.
omni, i understand what a 'soft science' is. the logic used by the soft science and the hard science are the same... ie: they both use inductive and deductive reasoning. your ridiculous stance is that they do not. this is evidenced by the record over and over and over. now, if you continue to support your stance that the "soft sciences"
do not use inductive or deductive reasoning in logic then please show and define what type of logic is being used... ::)
No the logic used isn't the same. Inductive reasoning, uniqueness of truth regarding one phenomenon is strongly discouraged in soft sciences. On the contrary, hard sciences rely on inductive reasoning -- one good experiment is enough to conclude about the outcome of the same experiment under the same conditions any where in the world, any time. Uniqueness of truth is a given. Truth is a dictator. And so on and so forth. There are huge differences between the application of logic in the sofe as opposed to hard sciences let alone that for hard sciences there are no topics taboo. Soft sciences are wrought with taboos. Differences are huge, form an intellectual perspective. That's onviously news to you but, hey, that the use for these discussion, to learn something new sometimes.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 06:19:05 PM
No the logic used isn't the same. Inductive reasoning, uniqueness of truth regarding one phenomenon is strongly discouraged in soft sciences. On the contrary, hard sciences rely on inductive reasoning -- one good experiment is enough to conclude about the outcome of the same experiment under the same conditions any where in the world, any time. Uniqueness of truth is a given. Truth is a dictator. And so on and so forth. There are huge differences between the application of logic in the sofe as opposed to hard sciences let alone that for hard sciences there are no topics taboo. Soft sciences are wrought with taboos. Differences are huge, form an intellectual perspective. That's onviously news to you but, hey, that the use for these discussion, to learn something new sometimes.
tu stultus es... q.e.d.
logic is the study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. the methods of valid inference and correct reasoning are inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning... the soft sciences use both (regardless of which one is discouraged) and the hard sciences use both (regardless of which one is discouraged)... therefore the logic is the same. there is no "different" logic.
the only thing i have learned from you omni, is that you have nothing to teach me at all...
as an aside, if there are no taboos in hard science why is you have such trouble convincing people of the CoE violation you constantly pimp? ::) and i think you may have meant to say the soft sciences are fraught with taboos... to say they are wrought with them sounds a little stultus...
Well, I can only explain it to you, I cannot understand it for you. You have to exert some efforts of your own, if you can, to understand where these differences lie and why should also he logic differ as a result of these different approaches. It's not enough to say inductive and deductive and be done with it. There are differences in application, as I explained, in many different ways, let alone that one of these is discouraged (I repeat it for the umptieth time). It's just naive to even allow the thought that there may not be differences in logic when the whole perspective of these sciences regarding truth differs so much. This is something, however, for you to sort out and hopefully you are equipped to do that, in which I'm not that certain.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 06:37:22 PM
Well, I can only explain it to you, I cannot understand it for you. You have to exert some efforts of your own, if you can, to understand where these differences lie and why should also he logic differ as a result of these different approaches. It's not enough to say inductive and deductive and be done with it. There are differences in application, as I explained, in many different ways, let alone that one of these is discouraged (I repeat it for the umptieth time). It's just naive to even allow the thought that there may not be differences in logic when the whole perspective of these sciences regarding truth differs so much. This is something, however, for you to sort out and hopefully you are equipped to do that, in which I'm not that certain.
this is utter bullshit omni and i'm calling you on it. differences in application, as you explained ::) was never the subject of contention. this is just another strawman fallacy of yours... you said "different rules than the rules during scientific discourse." which is utter nonsense... there is only one system of logic... not separate varieties for the soft sciences, and the hard sciences, and the squishy sciences, and the lukewarm sciences... ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Because hard sciences nowadays, being strongly influenced societally, do not function as they should, paying, as I said, only lip service to the scientific method. Contemporary hard sciences can be characterized by one word -- dishonesty. So they have been turned into travesty of science. I'm, of course, not talking about such twisted science but what its very essence is. All I've said concerns the essence of true hard and soft sciences. The differences I referred to are essential, not a result of deviant, unfortunate circumstances and flawed politics. I thought I made it clear earlier.
Not true. The system of logic actually differs in these areas. What's even more shocking is that the scientific logic (hard science logic) is being violated at every step of the way even in the institutions devoted to be its greatest protectors. Science (real science, hard science, that is) is in shambles and only naive or semi-educated people such as you appear to be from this conversation, don't see it.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 06:48:40 PM
Because hard sciences nowadays, being strongly influenced societally, do not function as they should, paying, as I said, only lip service to the scientific method. Contemporary hard sciences can be characterized by one word -- dishonesty. So they have been turned into travesty of science. I'm, of course, not talking about such twisted science but what its very essence is. All I've said concerns the essence of true hard and soft sciences. The differences I referred to are essential, not a result of deviant, unfortunate circumstances and flawed politics. I thought I made it clear earlier.
no didn't make that clear earlier, you used it as a red herring fallacy to divert the argument because you couldn't provide a cogent response. just like you are doing now. your opinion on the honesty or lack thereof of contemporary hard science is irrelevant! the logic under debate here is the logic used in reasoning and the same that is used to point out fallacies. that is what started it all remember? i do, it was your erroneous statement declaring what ad hominem was... ::)
No wonder why I'm so mad at international crooks such as Popper, Feynman and the like who have damaged already several generations of scientists and have brought science, especially physics, not only to a standstill but into a dead-end street. The whole situation, especially in physics is utterly outrageous, ignoring OU notwithstanding. Even the most basic stuff is noting but plain, easily provable nonsense.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 06:50:07 PM
Not true. The system of logic actually differs in these areas. What's even more shocking is that the scientific logic (hard science logic) is being violated at every step of the way even in the institutions devoted to be its greatest protectors. Science (real science, hard science, that is) is in shambles and only naive or semi-educated people such as you appear to be from this conversation, don't see it.
you are incorrect. the logic doesn't differ at all.
logic is the study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. the methods of valid inference and correct reasoning are inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning... the soft sciences use both (regardless of which one is discouraged) and the hard sciences use both (regardless of which one is discouraged)... therefore the logic is the same. there is no "different" logic. if you contend it is then simply show a valid inference method that doesn't use inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning. ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 06:55:18 PM
no didn't make that clear earlier, you used it as a red herring fallacy to divert the argument because you couldn't provide a cogent response. just like you are doing now. your opinion on the honesty or lack thereof of contemporary hard science is irrelevant! the logic under debate here is the logic used in reasoning and the same that is used to point out fallacies. that is what started it all remember? i do, it was your erroneous statement declaring what ad hominem was... ::)
Of course. I already pointed out the intrinsic differences let alone the travesty of science we're experiencing nowadays.
My opinion about what science is nowadays isn't something hanging in the air, but has roots. I've given you a clue where this opinion stems from.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 06:59:17 PM
Of course. I already pointed the intrinsic differences let alone the travesty of science we're experiencing nowadays.
no you didn't point out any intrinsic differences... please define the method used that is not inductive or deductive reasoning. please give an example of a strong case and a weak case of this 'omni' ::) method. including the various (if any) types of this 'omni' method would be helpful as well.
your opinion is irrelevant... ::) but yes, you have given me a clue as to where it stems from. it stems from your obvious mental deficiency and/or your lack of education.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on February 03, 2011, 07:03:41 PM
no you didn't point out any intrinsic differences... please define the method used that is not inductive or deductive reasoning. please give an example of a strong case and a weak case of this 'omni' ::) method. including the various (if any) types of this 'omni' method would be helpful as well.
your opinion is irrelevant... ::) but yes, you have given me a clue as to where it stems from. it stems from your obvious mental deficiency and/or your lack of education.
Don't project onto others what applies to you. Your education is deficient and you are the one lacking mental capacity.
As for concrete examples, I leave them to you, as a homework. There are plenty of examples in the intrinsic sense, let alone the travesty aspect. As a matter of fact, the Hamilton's equations are one such concrete example but you're not equipped to understand my argument, as was seen. So, you're the one lacking knowledge and ability to understand what I'm saying but are blaming me for your deficiencies. What a stupid situation you've put yourself in.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 07:19:31 PM
Don't project onto others what applies to you. Your education is deficient and you are the one lacking mental capacity.
As for concrete examples, I leave them to you, as a homework. There are plenty of examples in the intrinsic sense, let alone the travesty aspect. As a matter of fact, the Hamilton's equations are one such concrete example but you're not equipped to understand my argument, as was seen. So, you're the one lacking knowledge and ability to understand what I'm saying but are blaming me for your deficiencies. What a stupid situation you've put yourself in.
you have no idea what my education is... ::)
as i said earlier, hamilton's equations are irrelevant to the debate between you and i. you are the one lacking in the ability to point out any intrinsic differences... please define the method used that is not inductive or deductive reasoning. please give an example of a strong case and a weak case of this 'omni' ::) method. including the various (if any) types of this 'omni' method would be helpful as well. but, you lack the knowledge and ability to do so, and so you blame your deficiencies on me... ::)
or continue with your evasion via logical fallacies... ::)
Like I said, you're not equipped to comprehend the examples I can give. That's evident. Case in point -- the Hamiltonian equations problem. That's one relevant example but you can't even appreciate it neither do you like it. Therefore, you have to look for your own examples following the instructions I gave you.
Now, like I said, you're continuing to be a nuisance in this thread because you lack self-respect. I tolerated you for quite a while but I'm warning you, I'll cut you off if you continue nagging. Try to comprehend what I'm saying. Try to come up with examples along the lines I instructed you and do something positive. You can't expect to be spoon fed and to advance at the same time. You have to put some effort of your own too.
Now, to help you a little bit. Think about postulates or axioms. Are they a result of deductive or inductive reasoning? How about political doctrines or ethics of good and bad? Think about aesthetical ideals. What is beauty, is it a result of deductions or inductions? The list may go on and on. Do you need more help? Are these tips enough? So far all this is outside the taboos. What are the taboo topics in soft sciences a result of -- are they progeny of inductive or deductive reasoning?
When OJ was let go was that a result of inductive or deductive logic and has it anything to do with the objective truth? Will you agree the validity of Ohm's law to be decided by your neighbors, the bus driver, the teller in the bank and the shoeshine boy?
Congrats! Just over the last few days, several hundreds of new BS posts...
:P
Quote from: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 08:02:03 PM
Now, to help you a little bit. Think about postulates or axioms. Are they a result of deductive or inductive reasoning? How about political doctrines or ethics of good and bad? Think about aesthetical ideals. What is beauty, is it a result of deductions or inductions? The list may go on and on. Do you need more help? Are these tips enough? So far all this is outside the taboos. What are the taboo topics in soft sciences a result of -- are they progeny of inductive or deductive reasoning?
tu stultus es... q.e.d
actually this does help explain your ridiculous posts... LMFAO what is beauty? well... it most certainly isn't logic... ::) nor are aesthetical [sic] ideals, nor are political doctrines, and the list goes on and on... ::)
yes this helps explain much of your lunacy... thank you
How about zoology or botany with their classification systems? Where's the inductive or deductive logic there? How about temperature of verbs in the quantitative theory of literature the subject of study in institutes of literature at the academies of sciences? What about geology and its classification systems or the systems of philosophy? It's typical for lunatics like you to be narrow mineded and stuck in a box of memorized definitions without a trace of understanding. Completely useless boastful peacock of no content -- knowing everything but in fact knowing nothing.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 04, 2011, 12:29:29 PM
How about zoology or botany with their classification systems? Where's the inductive or deductive logic there? How about temperature of verbs in the quantitative theory of literature the subject of study in institutes of literature at the academies of sciences? What about geology and its classification systems or the systems of philosophy? It's typical for lunatics like you to be narrow mineded and stuck in a box of memorized definitions without a trace of understanding. Completely useless boastful peacock of no content -- knowing everything but in fact knowing nothing.
Ditto
@jacob alex posted this in a separate thread but I think it needs immediate attention in this main thread discussing Dmitriev's motor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ02MjqBk7s
@P-Motion,
I mentioned that earlier. This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENrMwPNt9Cc&feature=player_embedded# reminds me of the stuff you were doing. Notice in this case the use of the one-way clutch bearing. I'll be doing some experiment on this in the coming weeks and I was wondering if would feel interesting to try it on your rig. Notice, when the weight is attached at the rim the wheel cannot make even one full turn. However, when the attachment is through the lever secured to the disc by the one-way clutch beaing, starting from the same height, the wheel makes almost three turns. Hope you find it interesting to show us a video of this effect. All the best.
there is no energy amplification in this wheel
Quote from: JEJEHO on February 16, 2011, 01:14:44 AM
there is no energy amplification in this wheel
If the wheel with the lever shows almost three times more turns than the wheel w/ weight attached to rim then there is energy amplification. Your analysis isn't enough to counter that. Show experiment.
It is amazing that in the last 8 or 9 pages maybe more alot of BS has been shovled back and forth. Instead of staying on topic and progressing instead it is just slinging BS at eachother.
Why is this so hard to believe? Let's see how many have replicated this project here? Second that if you look at the gearing type ratio I think you will find it somewhat similar to the "Directly downwind is faster" and if you can't believe and see that actually works then time for you to leave. Instead of wind he is using gravity. But one can only go so fast with a gravity wheel because of the rate of fall governed by earth's gravitational pull.
Anyway wasted more time reading stupid posts. At least Hal. gets some hits.
nickle989
13 pages of gibberish over a simulation of something that obviously to an experienced wheel researcher will not work! It is rather obvious just looking at the drawing there is no way this thing can ever lift the amount of weights as shown.
Omnibus should know better than to involve himself on this thread. He makes a better audiophile consultant than a gravity wheel researcher.
Fact is; I am installing a home theater system based on the new 'Audyssey DSX' for a 11.1 channel sound system.
Ralph Lortie
CEO 'Arrache'
I for one think that this design will work and am going to try to build it, just for fun. If it doesn't, then at least it'll be a neat toy.
@ Supergod,
I also liked Mikhail's wheel, and for all the people saying that it doesn't work, I haven't seen a single replication by anyone to disprove it. I'm looking forward to seeing your results.
rlortie
It has merit, a gravity wheel, a wheel of leavers is what I liken it, along with angular momentum has potential. Pulling a heavy load staight up with one pulley vs say 3 or 4 is good example. The old torque vs speed. A few years ago on a wind turbine project that I worked on violated the Betz limit, the local Phd's said it was impossiable until they stuck it in their wind tunnel ... I laughed my ass off.
I think for this to work better one needs to use a round weight at the end like a bearing and then a magnet at a right angle at the outside of the wheel this will help pull the weight up past the outer edge of circumferance and then when the weight crests the gravitation plain pull it will simply drop. I also do not see how an even number of unit will work better then an odd number.
Just my 1 penny thought.
I think I will build a small one ... just cause it now intriques me and I don't have the money to replicate the noble gas engine.
Yeah, it looks cheap and easy to build, so why not?
Quote from: nickle989 on April 10, 2011, 07:49:08 AM
rlortie
It has merit, a gravity wheel, a wheel of leavers is what I liken it, along with angular momentum has potential. Pulling a heavy load staight up with one pulley vs say 3 or 4 is good example. The old torque vs speed. A few years ago on a wind turbine project that I worked on violated the Betz limit, the local Phd's said it was impossiable until they stuck it in their wind tunnel ... I laughed my ass off.
I think for this to work better one needs to use a round weight at the end like a bearing and then a magnet at a right angle at the outside of the wheel this will help pull the weight up past the outer edge of circumferance and then when the weight crests the gravitation plain pull it will simply drop. I also do not see how an even number of unit will work better then an odd number.
Just my 1 penny thought.
I think I will build a small one ... just cause it now intriques me and I don't have the money to replicate the noble gas engine.
Sorry for the offtopic, could you explain your turbine more, please?
Quote from: nickle989 on April 10, 2011, 07:49:08 AM
rlortie
It has merit, a gravity wheel, a wheel of leavers is what I liken it, along with angular momentum has potential. Pulling a heavy load staight up with one pulley vs say 3 or 4 is good example. The old torque vs speed. A few years ago on a wind turbine project that I worked on violated the Betz limit, the local Phd's said it was impossiable until they stuck it in their wind tunnel ... I laughed my ass off.
I think for this to work better one needs to use a round weight at the end like a bearing and then a magnet at a right angle at the outside of the wheel this will help pull the weight up past the outer edge of circumferance and then when the weight crests the gravitation plain pull it will simply drop. I also do not see how an even number of unit will work better then an odd number.
Just my 1 penny thought.
I think I will build a small one ... just cause it now intriques me and I don't have the money to replicate the noble gas engine.
Just a thought: If you're gonna use a magnet to assist the wheel, this magnet will allso assist the wheel in the oposite direction when the ball has passed the magnet.
Super God ... It is based on a ducted wind turbine. I can not go into details at this time.
Low-Q - yes that is what I was thinking also ... one will need to use some magnetic shielding also other wise any help will be lost. One could use lead for a half circle a sphere would be better ... this would serve as weight also.
I have started thinking on calculations also. One needs to consider weight of the wheel etc and the amount of energy just needed to turn it along with anything that is attached to it. And then gravity.
Another thought is an elipticle orbit ( think of a smot ).. look at planetary system it works on this principal because it needs to. Earth's magnetisphere place an import part.
I will build a round one first and then an oval one .... if you can build up the speed and then sling shot it quickly to break free it should work.
@nickle 989
Have you read this?
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm
Very interestesting and in many of my simulations of the milkovic based ideas, l see the elliptical orbit keeps popping up.
Quote from: nickle989 on April 12, 2011, 09:05:22 AM
Super God ... It is based on a ducted wind turbine. I can not go into details at this time.
Low-Q - yes that is what I was thinking also ... one will need to use some magnetic shielding also other wise any help will be lost. One could use lead for a half circle a sphere would be better ... this would serve as weight also.
I have started thinking on calculations also. One needs to consider weight of the wheel etc and the amount of energy just needed to turn it along with anything that is attached to it. And then gravity.
Another thought is an elipticle orbit ( think of a smot ).. look at planetary system it works on this principal because it needs to. Earth's magnetisphere place an import part.
I will build a round one first and then an oval one .... if you can build up the speed and then sling shot it quickly to break free it should work.
Magnetic shielding will not help here. The shield will also weaken the magnetic field which was suppose to attract the weight in addition to do the shielding part... Well, there is no way around gravity or magnets this way. The sum of forces will cancel out into nothing. Any weight that is limited to travel the same path, oval or circular, it is limited to the same difference in altitude, and therfor also limited to gain the same potential energy as the kinetic energy. These two will cancel out and not be able to provide excess force which possibly could do some work over distance.
Vidar
Quote from: gdez on April 12, 2011, 07:09:52 PM
@nickle 989
Have you read this?
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm
Very interestesting and in many of my simulations of the milkovic based ideas, l see the elliptical orbit keeps popping up.
Yes ran into this awhile ago ... gave it another read though. Funny how science quickly forgets to relate items together .... they could have looked at why they put rifling grooves in a gun ... to spin the bullet for accuracy and distance. This was proven way way back ... lol
But the degree's mentioned have great merit along with HD play.
Quote from: Low-Q on April 13, 2011, 12:01:51 PM
Magnetic shielding will not help here. The shield will also weaken the magnetic field which was suppose to attract the weight in addition to do the shielding part... Well, there is no way around gravity or magnets this way. The sum of forces will cancel out into nothing. Any weight that is limited to travel the same path, oval or circular, it is limited to the same difference in altitude, and therfor also limited to gain the same potential energy as the kinetic energy. These two will cancel out and not be able to provide excess force which possibly could do some work over distance.
Vidar
I will beg to differ, the shielding is there to prevent the magnetic attraction from going through to the other sister weight ... when concentrating the magnetic beam to a point it will act as a pivot point and easy to tip and with ratching setup it can't go back which would then give the other magnet to pull up more. Try balancing 3 pencils, you can with 2, with 3 you are always trying to find a balance point the magnet is like the third pencil (A chat with David Hamel many years ago, which was never a spinning disk like some think but a vibrating one that could never find balance) An eliptical orbit is also important as one wants to change the in a sling shot effect.
Expanding on the theory ... Earth's gravity will also need to be converted to Frequency and then the secondary planetary will need to run beyond that ... I can't convert the Frequency until the final size and distance is measured. We also want to be able to use the Earth's stored inertia so the overall unit should be running to the east thus capitalizing on the Earth's speed spin which can also be converted to Frequency.
The wheel should be a spoke wheel that way the energy is stored on the outside .
There are a couple of other things that I think can contribute also, but I will wait until I have it built and try it ... that way if it fails I don't look to bad ... and if it works then it make me look like a genius ...lol
Very one in the world has to see this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6gaN8gRs5A ;D
Quote from: zapjosh on April 15, 2011, 12:08:46 PM
Very one in the world has to see this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6gaN8gRs5A ;D
The same design has been displayed on youtube before. It is not a selfrunner, but a funny toy :)
Hello, I was curious about this work and I've replicate it with Algodoo. I've tried the version magnet-assisted (look at the draw made by mr. Dmitriyev). Results: the wheel doesn't rotate, cause the magnets effectively assists the wheel, yes, but also in the opposite direction.
Quote from: Low-Q on April 12, 2011, 09:01:07 AM
Just a thought: If you're gonna use a magnet to assist the wheel, this magnet will allso assist the wheel in the oposite direction when the ball has passed the magnet.
BTW, that software is great!
Software is not the answer one needs to build a real unit. A ratchet effect will be need to hold the lever from falling back as it passes the equal point. An excelleration will occur in as the wheel comes down.
Quote from: andrea on November 20, 2011, 08:56:59 AM
Hello, I was curious about this work and I've replicate it with Algodoo. I've tried the version magnet-assisted (look at the draw made by mr. Dmitriyev). Results: the wheel doesn't rotate, cause the magnets effectively assists the wheel, yes, but also in the opposite direction.
BTW, that software is great!
Hi Andrea,
I think it is what I mentioned to you on youtube about what you've built. If when a pendulum starts to swing, it eitheer lifts or stops the fall of another pendulum, then momentum can be conserved. This is beacause the pendulum passing bottom center can reach a greater height whille travelling less distance. Going with f = ma here.
@Vidar, this guy has updated his video even though no one has claimed to have tried it and had different results.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGq2WSnE7j0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGq2WSnE7j0)
@Nickle, I think one thing people over look when it comes to anything like SMOt is that there is a difference between pulling a weight and suspending it. If on the ramp upwards,the magnets increase in attraction (pull), if the weight comes to a drop off before the strength of the magnets can suspend the weight, then it is theorhetically possible to use magnets to assist in motion.
Jim
Quote from: nickle989 on November 20, 2011, 08:26:28 PM
Software is not the answer one needs to build a real unit. A ratchet effect will be need to hold the lever from falling back as it passes the equal point. An excelleration will occur in as the wheel comes down.
Here you have the file, if you want to try. Yes, a software simulation is not the answer but it's a "start".. Btw, the ratchet effect seems to me very complicated to realize, cause when the wheel rotate there would be a system for "relaxing" the ratchet and allow the the lever to falling freely.
Bye!
Quote from: andrea on November 20, 2011, 08:56:59 AM
Hello, I was curious about this work and I've replicate it with Algodoo. I've tried the version magnet-assisted (look at the draw made by mr. Dmitriyev). Results: the wheel doesn't rotate, cause the magnets effectively assists the wheel, yes, but also in the opposite direction.
BTW, that software is great!
Andrea,
There is something simple you can try with magnets. Have them at an angle.
It is possible when passing the magnet, it's field
is also passed. If so, shielding would not be needed.
Jim
edited to change pic
Quote from: andrea on November 20, 2011, 08:56:59 AM
Hello, I was curious about this work and I've replicate it with Algodoo. I've tried the version magnet-assisted (look at the draw made by mr. Dmitriyev). Results: the wheel doesn't rotate, cause the magnets effectively assists the wheel, yes, but also in the opposite direction.
BTW, that software is great!
What do you think will happen to the wheel then the magnets is suppose to repel the magnets on the wheel? The repel must neccessarily act force in the opposite direction of rotation in order to unbalance the wheel. Therfor you will not gain any extra energy. You could likely use a lever to mechanicly push the weights out of position instead of using magnets.
Vidar
Beautiful work http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5tH8ibslew (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5tH8ibslew)
Yep.
It would be even more beautiful without that big ugly blue MULTI HORSEPOWER ELECTRIC MOTOR driving it.
Hi all.
my first wheels are not nice =)
You can look 1st with russian language here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_RjuHgVZtY and read some english description and results here: http://hrlab.me/en/dmitriev-gravitation-wheel-replication-1/
My second wheel is bit more interesting (but also not working one).
I done english video also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZFbe2jeaCw , and more description at my website: http://hrlab.me/en/gravity_wheel_2/
For all models you can download stl/skp files to rebuild em by yourself.
P.S. i'm not native english speaker, and totaly not a writer, sorry.
Quote from: sterlinga on January 30, 2011, 02:23:51 AM
I've created a feature page on this here: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Mikhail_Dmitriev_Gravity_Wheel
Mikhail Dmitriev Gravity Wheel - This Russian inventor has been developing gravity-based power systems for years and says that the design has been widely replicated in Russia, even powering some houses. He says he has posted all necessary information to build the device, in which a small amount of power input generates much greater power output. (PESWiki; January 30, 2011)
I also created an animation.
I saw you have a 3D solid works design in your website. Have you build the working prototype?
Quote from: nickle989 on April 10, 2011, 07:49:08 AM
rlortie
It has merit, a gravity wheel, a wheel of leavers is what I liken it, along with angular momentum has potential. Pulling a heavy load staight up with one pulley vs say 3 or 4 is good example. The old torque vs speed. A few years ago on a wind turbine project that I worked on violated the Betz limit, the local Phd's said it was impossiable until they stuck it in their wind tunnel ... I laughed my ass off.
I think for this to work better one needs to use a round weight at the end like a bearing and then a magnet at a right angle at the outside of the wheel this will help pull the weight up past the outer edge of circumferance and then when the weight crests the gravitation plain pull it will simply drop. I also do not see how an even number of unit will work better then an odd number.
Just my 1 penny thought.
I think I will build a small one ... just cause it now intriques me and I don't have the money to replicate the noble gas engine.
Have you build a workable gravity wheel? I have no money to build it but I am very curious about it.
Am I missing something?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 17, 2015, 08:34:36 AM
Am I missing something?
Wheel 3 is ideal gravity wheel. But how to realize it?
Quote from: lis_wang on March 17, 2015, 09:33:25 AM
Wheel 3 is ideal gravity wheel. But how to realize it?
Wheel 3, appears to have the same issue as the other two...,
there is a vertical distance not recovered by the imbalanced leverage.
(see red lines I drew)
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 17, 2015, 10:05:04 AM
Wheel 3, appears to have the same issue as the other two...,
there is a vertical distance not recovered by the imbalanced leverage.
(see red lines I drew)
Where is the read line you drew? I cannot see.
For wheel 2, my idea is the weight at uppper right hand side can use a stationary motor fixed at upper right hand side (within the circle of wheel) push to the right and the weight at lower left hand side can use a stationary motor fixed at lower left hand side (outside the circle of wheel) to push to the right. All the weights are pivot supportted by one way bearing so when the weights pushed to the right will not turn back to the vertical position.
It can build a close loop system. A generator is driven by the wheel and the electric generated powers the two motors and a LED light. Do you think it is possible?
Quote from: ieroglif on October 05, 2014, 02:23:47 PM
Hi all.
my first wheels are not nice =)
You can look 1st with russian language here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_RjuHgVZtY and read some english description and results here: http://hrlab.me/en/dmitriev-gravitation-wheel-replication-1/
My second wheel is bit more interesting (but also not working one).
I done english video also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZFbe2jeaCw , and more description at my website: http://hrlab.me/en/gravity_wheel_2/
For all models you can download stl/skp files to rebuild em by yourself.
P.S. i'm not native english speaker, and totaly not a writer, sorry.
Your second video shows at least if the weights are always at right hand size will make the wheel turn. However I think the friction at the wheel center support is two high and weight are too small. So the torque is not high enough.
Quote from: lis_wang on March 17, 2015, 09:49:55 PM
Where is the read line you drew? I cannot see.
ok,my color is a little dull, so I re-did the image #3, and made the red line darker.
its in all 3 pics, where the "h" is. E = mgh <---- that h is important!!
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 18, 2015, 03:27:25 PM
ok,my color is a little dull, so I re-did the image #3, and made the red line darker.
its in all 3 pics, where the "h" is. E = mgh <---- that h is important!!
The weight from 12 o'clock to 3 o'clock cannot be supported by a stationary platform otherwise the gravity force acted on the wheel is zero. I saw Mikhail Dmitriyev use motor to push the weights to the right hand side at about 1 o'clock but after that they turn back to vertical position again. I think a one way clutch is needed to maintain the weight position at right.
The platform at after 6 o'clock can be used to turn the weight to the right again and support the weight as the gravity force in this region has reverse effect to the wheel clock wise turning.
Quote from: lis_wang on March 19, 2015, 01:48:26 AM
The weight from 12 o'clock to 3 o'clock cannot be supported by a stationary platform otherwise the gravity force acted on the wheel is zero. I saw Mikhail Dmitriyev use motor to push the weights to the right hand side at about 1 o'clock but after that they turn back to vertical position again. I think a one way clutch is needed to maintain the weight position at right.
The platform at after 6 o'clock can be used to turn the weight to the right again and support the weight as the gravity force in this region has reverse effect to the wheel clock wise turning.
The point im trying to emphasize here is that E = mgh, regardless of the mechanical method used to "lift" the weight.
motors, relays, etc. This energy must still be applied to perform the work. And in each example, the weight lifted and the weight falling is the same. Resulting in a net energy of 0. Any losses do to friction, heat, wind resistance, etc. further detracts from the driving force.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 19, 2015, 07:32:51 AM
The point im trying to emphasize here is that E = mgh, regardless of the mechanical method used to "lift" the weight.
motors, relays, etc. This energy must still be applied to perform the work. And in each example, the weight lifted and the weight falling is the same. Resulting in a net energy of 0. Any losses do to friction, heat, wind resistance, etc. further detracts from the driving force.
But if magnet to lift the weight at 7 o'clock, the wheel will be unblanced. Then it can rotate.
Quote from: lis_wang on March 19, 2015, 10:30:10 AM
But if magnet to lift the weight at 7 o'clock, the wheel will be unblanced. Then it can rotate.
Permanent magnets, perhaps - if they can be arrange such that the force vector is not counter to rotation.
electromagnets will waste energy