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.

User Menu

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

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 486543
  • *Total Topics: 14311
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 10
  • *Guests: 133
  • *Total: 143

Facebook

Author Topic: i have proof!  (Read 28046 times)

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #30 on: February 09, 2011, 02:35:55 AM »
Well, but finally this is what it boils down to -- @Tinsel Koala claims there are internal contradictions in the discussed "theory". That should be the focus of the debate and not how we got to know what he really thinks about the theory, concealed at the beginning into an inexact definition.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: i have proof!
« Reply #30 on: February 09, 2011, 02:35:55 AM »

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #31 on: February 09, 2011, 02:41:36 AM »
Well, but finally this is what it boils down to -- @Tinsel Koala claims there are internal contradictions in the discussed "theory". That should be the focus of the debate and not how we got to know what he really thinks about the theory, concealed at the beginning into an inexact definition.
"well,  "  ::) is that all you have?  LMFAO!!!
no. this is what it boils down to: tinsel claimed "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known." i called him out on this most obvious error. as usual, he refused to admit he was wrong and then simply amend his words. he instead choose to twist and squirm and ''move the goalposts', and you jumped to his defense. now, if you want to have a debate with tinsel and whomever (not me) about dave's theory, have at it, but don't go trying to tell me what my issue with tinsel is (or should be)... it makes you look stupid.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #32 on: February 09, 2011, 03:27:53 AM »
Your problem is that you don't see the wider perspective in these debates and are holding on to memorized little definitions and approaches which limit you from seeing the bigger picture. Clarifying what one meant isn't moving the goalposts but is just what it is -- clarification. You obviously feel the need to pounce on somebody and are ambushing people for slight inexactnesses in expressing their thoughts only to make a big deal out of them. By the way, it was obvious what @Tinsel Koala meant from the get go and that hasn't been answered yet.

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #33 on: February 09, 2011, 03:37:50 AM »
Your problem is that you don't see the wider perspective in these debates and are holding on to memorized little definitions and approaches which limit you from seeing the bigger picture. Clarifying what one meant isn't moving the goalposts but is just what it is -- clarification. You obviously feel the need to pounce on somebody and are ambushing people for slight inexactnesses in expressing their thoughts only to make a big deal out of them. By the way, it was obvious what @Tinsel Koala meant from the get go and that hasn't been answered yet.
regarding your red herring reply: your problem is that you don't understand that your "wider perspective" is irrelevant to the issue i have with tinsel's arbitrary definitions... ::) regarding clarification: that would be fine and dandy had he admitted his error and amended his words, he decided on another way...


Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #34 on: February 09, 2011, 03:56:25 AM »
Clarification is enough. What is there to admit? He didn't change his opinion about the "theory" so there's nothing to apologize.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: i have proof!
« Reply #34 on: February 09, 2011, 03:56:25 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #35 on: February 09, 2011, 04:02:56 AM »
Clarification is enough. What is there to admit? He didn't change his opinion about the "theory" so there's nothing to apologize.
regarding your red herring response: his opinion about the "theory" is irrelevant. it is his erroneous definition of coherent that is the issue i have with tinselkoala. this has been explained to you several times... are you mental?

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #36 on: February 09, 2011, 04:10:04 AM »
Yeah, but in the end he sharpened the definition to express what he really meant. His more nuanced definition is actually correct and therefore that issue is already moot.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: i have proof!
« Reply #36 on: February 09, 2011, 04:10:04 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #37 on: February 09, 2011, 04:13:19 AM »
Yeah, but in the end he sharpened the definition to express what he really meant. His more nuanced definition is actually correct and therefore that issue is already moot.
on the contrary. tinsel claimed "Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known." he then squirmed and twisted that into "internally contradictory"... and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.  tu stutus es... q.e.d.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #38 on: February 09, 2011, 04:26:56 AM »
Well, I think we already agreed on "contradict the already known" part as incorrect. Why bring it back? The internal inconsistency is what was brought in not as a squirm and twist but as a clarification of what was meant. I already said that. The internal inconsistency is the pivot and it should not be sidetracked by irrelevant talk.

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #39 on: February 09, 2011, 04:30:28 AM »
Well, I think we already agreed on "contradict the already known" part as incorrect. Why bring it back? The internal inconsistency is what was brought in not as a squirm and twist but as a clarification of what was meant. I already said that. The internal inconsistency is the pivot and it should not be sidetracked by irrelevant talk.
yes, you finally agreed with me on that after several asinine posts by yourself and several very patient ones by myself explaining it to you... ::)
incorrect omni. it was brought in as a squirm and not a clarification. look at the record you mental midget.
Still playing the fool, I see.
What part of the definitions you have posted do you have trouble understanding? If a "theory" is internally contradictory and does not stick together with what is already known, it's incoherent --- as Lambright's word salad  shows quite clearly.
see that little bold word there? that AND modifier... so you see, oh mental midget, i haven't "brought anything back". he never amended it in the first place... ::)

tu stultus es... q.e.d.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: i have proof!
« Reply #39 on: February 09, 2011, 04:30:28 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #40 on: February 09, 2011, 04:35:21 AM »
ding! ding!

school is in. we are attempting to teach omnibus/troll comprehension and logic today... though it be an exercise in futility.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2011, 04:56:08 AM by WilbyInebriated »

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #41 on: February 09, 2011, 04:59:50 AM »
These are details, like I said. They are to be ironed out in the course of discussing the essence of the problems in the theory. In that course it will become known whether or not that "and" really means that the internal contradictions are not given the dominance, as it should. Because of language there are always all kinds of such points that need clarification and that's why some of the debates are so long. It's all about clarification of meaning between parties, sometimes subtle and full of nuances. For instance, regarding the essence of a scientific theory, since one Karl Popper is so confused what are we to expect from the participants in a humble forum such as this one.


Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #42 on: February 09, 2011, 05:07:05 AM »
These are details, like I said. They are to be ironed out in the course of discussing the essence of the problems in the theory. In that course it will become known whether or not that "and" really means that the internal contradictions are not given the dominance, as it should. Because of language there are always all kinds of such points that need clarification and that's why some of the debates are so long. It's all about clarification of meaning between parties, sometimes subtle and full of nuances. For instance, regarding the essence of a scientific theory, since one Karl Popper is so confused what are we to expect from the participants in a humble forum such as this one.
please avoid cluttering up this debate between tinsel koala and myself (not you) with this kind of irrelevant talk.

Offline MrMag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 757
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #43 on: February 09, 2011, 05:40:45 AM »
ding! ding!

school is in. we are attempting to teach omnibus/troll comprehension and logic today... though it be an exercise in futility.

Haha. Good luck. It's hard to teach someone who thinks they already know everything.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: i have proof!
« Reply #44 on: February 09, 2011, 05:51:48 AM »
I, for one, think that, on the contrary, your talk is irrelevant and clutters the thread devoted to discussing a theory. I've already expressed that opinion in several different ways but you're ignoring it and continue with the irrelevances. I'm no advocate of @Tinsel Koala with whom, many are aware, I've had issues in the past. Nevertheless, as a matter of principle, it has to be understood that when a theory is being discussed and in the course of that discussion certain inexactless in the terminology is uttered (as is usually the case) that should not divert the discussion into a talk about semantics and memorized definitions but the scientific discourse should rather continue unperturbed along its main course.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: i have proof!
« Reply #44 on: February 09, 2011, 05:51:48 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: