Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 82004
  • *Latest: Gogo

  • *Total Posts: 493054
  • *Total Topics: 14497
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 146
  • *Total: 147

Facebook

Author Topic: i have proof!  (Read 30574 times)

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2011, 11:04:56 PM »
So, he said that the "theory" in question is self-contradictory and you lied that he didn't.
lies. he said, and i quote: "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known"...  which is incorrect. ::) it is, however, not surprising. tinsel likes to make up his own definitions. he has done this before.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: i have proof!
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2011, 11:04:56 PM »

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2011, 11:10:20 PM »
lies. he said, and i quote: "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known"...  ::)

Well, you're rubbing that because you don't wanna admit the more important part, namely, that @Tinsel Koala claims said "theory" is based on internal contradictions. That's what makes it indeed incoherent. So, if @Tinsel Koala really demonstrates that the "theory" in question has internal contradictions then he is right about 'coherence'. As for you, you're stuck in your usual style of memorized definitions which you use without real understanding let alone that in focusing on those definitions you're sidetracking the important stuff always digging into trifle issues (non-issues, rather) instead.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2011, 11:14:36 PM »
Well, you're rubbing that because you don't wanna admit the more important part, namely, that @Tinsel Koala claims said "theory" is based on internal contradictions. That's what makes it indeed incoherent. So, if @Tinsel Koala really demonstrates that the "theory" in question has internal contradictions then he is right about 'coherence'. As for you, you're stuck in your usual style of memorized definitions which you use without real understanding let alone that in focusing on those definitions you're sidetracking the important stuff always digging into trifle issues (non-issues, rather) instead.
tu stultus es... which did he 'claim' first omni? what i quoted or what you're harping on?

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2011, 12:03:22 AM »
What's really important is whathe really means. You attacked him and lied that he didn't talk about internal contradictions after he did say that, really expressing what he really means. The real issue, however, is, of course, can @Tinsel Koala sustain his claim that the theory at hand is based on internal contradictions. The rest is splitting hairs which you love to do best.


Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2011, 12:07:11 AM »
What's really important is whathe really means. You attacked him and lied that he didn't talk about internal contradictions after he did say that, really expressing what he really means. The real issue, however, is, of course, can @Tinsel Koala sustain his claim that the theory at hand is based on internal contradictions. The rest is splitting hairs which you love to do best.
denied. red herring. you didn't answer my question in an attempt to  misdirect the issue. which did he 'claim' first omni? what i quoted or what you're harping on?

he was wrong. and still is. men admit their errors and amend their words when shown to be in error. the real issue between tinsel and i is his asinine adherence to his incorrect definition of coherent. i don't care what you did on who... ::)


"Communicating badly and then acting smug when misunderstood is not cleverness." -- randall munroe

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: i have proof!
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2011, 12:07:11 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2011, 12:22:38 AM »
He was in obvious error requiring that a theory should not contradict what is already known. That's not a logical error, however, as you're pushing but is some kind of general misunderstanding of what a theory really is or he just didn't express himself correctly. However, if he shows internal contradictions he will not be in error in using the word 'coherent' which he used first, you criticized him for that but, given that he can prove internal contradictions, the usage of that word was  just right. So, if he shows internal contradictions you should be the one to applogize for bugging him about insubstantial issues, being wrong at that.

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2011, 12:25:44 AM »
He was in obvious error requiring that a theory should not contradict what is already known. That's not a logical error, however, as you're pushing but is some kind of general misunderstanding of what a theory really is or he just didn't express himself correctly.
so now you concede that he was in obvious error... ::) tu stultus es... q.e.d.
you didn't answer my question in an attempt to  misdirect the issue. which did he 'claim' first omni? what i quoted or what you're harping on? for the record, i never pushed his asinine definition as a logical error. if you think i did, please quote the post that supports your asinine position.

the logical errors all belong to you omni... ::)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: i have proof!
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2011, 12:25:44 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2011, 01:48:58 AM »
What I'm really interested in is what the internal contradictions are in the "theory" under discussion which @Tinsel Koala alluded to. That's the issue, not your nitpicking about details, obviously having nothing else to do.

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2011, 01:51:16 AM »
What I'm really interested in is what the internal contradictions are in the "theory" under discussion which @Tinsel akoala alluded to. That's the issue, not your nitpicking about details, obviously having nothing else to do.
again, you didn't answer my question in an attempt to  misdirect the issue. which did he 'claim' first omni? what i quoted or what you're harping on?

what you're "interested in" isn't the issue... ::) the issue i have (with tinselkoala) is clearly defined in my first reply in this thread (to tinselkoala). no one cares what you're interested in... mint?  good grief! you're certifiable.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2011, 01:54:18 AM »
On the contrary, the issue is the "theory" in question and whether or not it is based on internal contradictions. Your nitpicking isn't the issue, no matter how much you try to push it (do you need a quotation that you really do?)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: i have proof!
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2011, 01:54:18 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2011, 01:57:16 AM »
On the contrary, the issue is the "theory" in question and whether or not it is based on internal contradictions. Your nitpicking isn't the issue, no matter how much you try to push it (do you need a quotation that you really do?)
again, you didn't answer my question in an attempt to  misdirect the issue. which did he 'claim' first omni? what i quoted or what you're harping on?

in regards to your latest logically fallacious response: on the contrary. i stated my issue (with tinselkoala's made up definition of coherent) if you have "issues" (and you obviously do) take them up with the author of the theory in question. they do not concern me, nor are they relevant to the issue i have with tinselkoala's asinine definition of coherent.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2011, 02:14:24 AM »
Your issues with whoever are immaterial here. Here we have a theory to discuss and that's the real issue. Don't foist on the readership of this forum your own issues.


Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2011, 02:17:05 AM »
Your issues with whoever are immaterial here. Here we have a theory to discuss and that's the real issue. Don't foist on the readership of this forum your own issues.
again, you didn't answer my question in an attempt to  misdirect the issue. which did he 'claim' first omni? what i quoted or what you're harping on?

regarding your red herring reply: if someone decides to post their own arbitrary, made up definition of a word, i will call them on it (especially tinselkoala, after that "replication" fiasco awhile back). you can blowhard all day trying to tell me what to do... i could care less.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2011, 02:20:47 AM »
That's fine to discuss definitions and when you understand what the opponent really means and that turns out to be acceptable then you move on and do not continue to nag.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2011, 02:22:22 AM »
That's fine to discuss definitions and when you understand what the opponent really means and that turns out to be acceptable then you move on and do not continue to nag.
regarding your red herring response: aye, but he didn't admit his error did he? he tried to twist and squirm and change his definition once again... didn't he.  ::)

show me where in this post the words "internally contradictory" are used... ::)
Proof you have? Let's see it then.


A THEORY does several things: it explains existing phenomena in a coherent manner. Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known. It also makes NEW PREDICTIONS of phenomena that are not yet understood. That is, any real theory of anything generates testable HYPOTHESES, which are "if-then" statements. If I hook up these components in this manner and put in thus signal for x time, I will then observe Y behaviour, which is NOT already predicted by current existing theories like QED which you are apparently trying to replace.

So, Mr. Lambright, I challenge you to use your "theory" to generate a testable hypothesis that reveals behaviour that is currently unexplained by the standard theories that are being used today to make things like computers and spacecraft and nylon stockings.

If you and your "theory" cannot do that much, then it's not a theory at all, but just a bunch of word salad, with a low-fat vinaigrette dressing.

yeah it's not there omni... oh look, he doesn't add that qualification until his reply to me calling out his error...
Still playing the fool, I see.
What part of the definitions you have posted do you have trouble understanding? If a "theory" is internally contradictory and does not stick together with what is already known, it's incoherent --- as Lambright's word salad  shows quite clearly.
thus, tu stultus es... q.e.d.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: i have proof!
« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2011, 02:22:22 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: