Mach Effect progress

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

93143
Posts: 1131
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:51 pm

Post by 93143 »

Chris, those aren't ad hominem. They're insults accompanying the argument, rather than being used as part of the argument.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

djolds1 wrote:. . .both you and GIT are debating in a juvenile fashion
Sorry but no, we're not having a debate and there's nothing juvenile about it. chris has forfeit any right to respect through years of constant effort to be the center of attention. I've asked him nicely dozens of times to knock it off and go get some counseling but he always returns because his mommy and daddy never gave him positive attention. He therefore seeks the only kind of attention he can get, which is when he derails discussion onto himself. Look at this folder now. chris is getting what he wants--a full page of comments not about the subject, but about chris--and he's eating it up.

Just a clue to the concerned, when someone posts crazy notes in third person, that he has retreated from society, it doesn't take a psychologist to see the guy is seriously troubled.

Please stop feeding the troll and lets all hope he goes away--AGAIN.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

GIThruster wrote:
djolds1 wrote:. . .both you and GIT are debating in a juvenile fashion
Sorry but no, we're not having a debate and there's nothing juvenile about it. chris has forfeit any right to respect through years of constant effort to be the center of attention. I've asked him nicely dozens of times to knock it off and go get some counseling but he always returns because his mommy and daddy never gave him positive attention. He therefore seeks the only kind of attention he can get, which is when he derails discussion onto himself. Look at this folder now. chris is getting what he wants--a full page of comments not about the subject, but about chris--and he's eating it up.
In that case, you are ignoring the first law of netiquette - don't feed the trolls.
GIThruster wrote:Just a clue to the concerned, when someone posts crazy notes in third person, that he has retreated from society, it doesn't take a psychologist to see the guy is seriously troubled.
Or has an oddball sense of style - its odd, but not diagnostic. I've been far from perfect myself here over time, but if this forum is not useful for various topics of physical theory and mechanics, it becomes a waste of time for everyone. And screaming matches do not amount to utility outside a voice coach's studio.
Vae Victis

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

93143 wrote:Chris, those aren't ad hominem. They're insults accompanying the argument, rather than being used as part of the argument.
Of course they are, because GIT uses them in a response to undermine the legitimacy of a posited fact-based argument. Just a 'for example'; what other purpose would there be to say "I should think though, it is obvious chris is arguing for the sake of being a troll." other than to attempt a characterisation to avoid addressing a valid question? The implication is that it is not the question itself at fault, but the poser of the question and therefore the question needs no answer.

GIT has avoided answering valid questions he chooses not to answer with insults. If the purpose was not to answer, then why did he not, simply, not answer?

All the questions posed under chrismb have been probing questions on the assumptions stated by GIT. It is perfectly appropriate to test a persons's assumptions. It is also appropriate to ask them again and again if the only response is a personal insult and not a fact based response. Annoying as that may be to the questioner, it is not appropriate to respond with an insult because the questioned person feels somehow aggrieved that the position they have an emotional attachment to is questioned. If the question has been answered before, a link demonstrating the question has been answer before is all that is needed.

To clarify 'ad hominem', it need not be a direct assertion within an argument, the term also covers personalised belittlements irrelevant to, and during, an argument. This is because it is raising unsubstantiated claims of a provocative nature so as to elicit a response not related to the nature of the debate at hand. GIT tries this tactic with many people, but as chrismb doesn't post here anymore then it is unlikely chrismb would come to offer a personal insult back.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

chrismb wrote:. . .what other purpose would there be to say "I should think though, it is obvious chris is arguing for the sake of being a troll." other than to attempt a characterisation to avoid addressing a valid question? The implication is that it is not the question itself at fault, but the poser of the question and therefore the question needs no answer.

GIT has avoided answering valid questions he chooses not to answer with insults. If the purpose was not to answer, then why did he not, simply, not answer?
Because I have answered you, chris; dozens of times on these issues. I explained more than a year ago that the way Jim checked for spurious contribution from the instrumentation lines was by removing them entirely and obtaining the same results. That test was not done at your request, but rather at Dr. Duncan Cummin's insistence that they might be somehow generating either a false signal or even real torques on the beam. They were not. You asked about this many months ago and I answered you. You asked about it again the other day, as if I have never answered your question, when in fact I did. I have answered dozens of your questions over the last few years.

I think what you don't get, chris; is that there are consequences for having acted out for years in this forum. I don't owe you any more patience than i have suffered through in the past. You're an asshole. You don't deserve answers, especially when you're asking the same questions over and over simply to draw attention to yourself.

Fact is, I continue to answer your questions periodically despite you use all manner of rhetorical device to insult Dr. Woodward, who is my good friend; and instead of answers what you really deserve is some slap therapy. You likewise insult everyone here in this forum, when you post your contempt for those interested in Jim's work, or pretending they are at fault for a lack of skepticism or critical thinking. In fact, the trouble is you need therapy. You hold the human race in contempt because life is not what you wish. I don't really care why it is, chris; I just want you to go away. You're a festering, malignant disease, looking to spread itself anywhere it can find purchase and you do not belong in this forum.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

GIThruster wrote:You're a festering, malignant disease, looking to spread itself anywhere it can find purchase and you do not belong in this forum.
The topic is polywell fusion.

This thread does not belong in this forum. In fact, you do not belong in this forum, you are a new arrival who has never sought to take an active role in discussing polywell fusion. You're only purpose in coming here is to discuss this topic, thus by your 'handle' does it become clear.

Why do you have an expectation that a forum dedicated to fusion would raise questions based on a through comprehension, and desire to read, all the schleb you expect people to wade through before asking questions? The lack of anyone's knowledge here on propellant-less thrusters is what you must expect and accommodate, not refuse to answer.

You continually resort to saying that everything is explained elsewhere, but have substantially failed to recall what the subject of this forum is. The obligations is upon you to explain what you want to explain in 3rd grade detail (as you put it).

At the end of the day, the whole notion of all the propellant-less thrusters is based on manipulated equations. It is substantially insufficient to say that the equations to which you expect people to accept show that it is possible to extract momentum from a different time and space. The incredibly obvious and immediate prima facie response MUST BE that the equations are not realistic.

You have always attempted to have you cake and eat it. On the one hand you take advantage of the analysis of conventional science, yet you then conveniently dismiss the inevitable conclusions that conventional science says about the conclusions of these equations you so often claim reliance on.

No insults, implied or rhetorical, have ever knowingly been posted under chrismb about Woodward or March. He is free to perform whatever experimentation he wants, and he can only ever expect and anticipate that the validity of his equations will be doubted and questioned very hard until he can show repeatable, categorical proof of his claims as to what those equations reveal. You should not seek to defend against such doubts and questions whilst you are emotionally, rather than objectively, engaged with the subject matter. Subject matter which, do not forget, is NOT the subject of this forum. This forum is about Polywell Fusion. So maybe it is better that you limit your discussions to a forum dedicated to that, and, at least, if you come onto another forum on a different topic then EXPECT to be questioned VERY THOROUGHLY on material that does not fit any conventional understanding of physics, AND that YOU will have to explain each and every detail.

So, remember, this forum is about POLYWELL FUSION. Recall that before you post every future post you make in your next 100 pages.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

chrismb wrote:The lack of anyone's knowledge here on propellant-less thrusters is what you must expect and accommodate, not refuse to answer.
My accounting of how Jim removed all the instrumentation wiring and received precisely the same results was at your request. I was in fact answering your question despite I had already explained this months earlier as a normal forum update. I explained it for the THIRD time a couple days ago when you brought it up again. I'm sure you'll bring up the instrumentation wires again in the future just because you know it irritates me.
At the end of the day, the whole notion of all the propellant-less thrusters is based on manipulated equations. It is substantially insufficient to say that the equations to which you expect people to accept show that it is possible to extract momentum from a different time and space. The incredibly obvious and immediate prima facie response MUST BE that the equations are not realistic.
This is really the issue for you. Like most of us, you know you don't understand GR, yet your response to this is completely opposite what a rational person's is. You think you're entitled to criticize science you can't understand. From that assumption, you search until you find an objection and then force your objections on anyone who will listen in order to be the center of attention. Fact is though, all this stuff has been peer reviewed for decades. The people who understand gravity and GR don't have the objections you do. And this is one of the most irritating things about you chris--you have constant delusions of grandeur that you MUST be right even when you know you don't understand the subject. That's why you don't deserve an answer, because it literally does not matter the quality of answer you receive. You are going to go on to fabricate yet another objection because this is what emotionally disturbed people do in order to remain the center of attention. They cause trouble in any way they have to, and it doesn't matter to them how much a diseased person they portray themselves as.

I can't help you chris. You need a therapist. You are a misanthrope. You hold humanity in contempt and yet routinely force yourself into situations where you are not wanted in order to get attention. You're very bright, and most times write in a very professional style, but while doing so you are aggressive, abusive, insulting, childish, irrational, demanding and temperamental. Conversation with you is very much like conversation with a five-year old who needs a nap. Despite your professional language and forced formality, you are a douchbag who has nothing of value to offer others, and certainly NOT WORTH MY TIME.

I would note though, that despite you presently have nothing of value to offers others because of your diseased psyche, you could mend some if you would just go get some therapy. You do understand that misanthropy is a disease? It's not a formal diagnosis and you won't find it in the DSM, but in general, all psychologists can agree that people who hate people have something very wrong with them. That's the kind of thing you could work out in therapy and would be time much better spent than your time here.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

GIThruster wrote:My accounting of how Jim removed all the instrumentation wiring and received precisely the same results was at your request.
The only direct request chrismb has so far ever requested is to include the power source in the inertial frame of the 'thrusted' device. No other requests were knowingly made by chrismb. You have asserted that these things you mention satisfied that request, but refused to discuss if that assertion is valid.

You continue to refuse to discuss that, and other, points and what you actually do is get to the point of threatening physical violence to resolve the question. Your debating skills are extraordinary.

One hopes that Woodward and March are happy what light it puts their work under, that when you put it forward you use threats of violence as a means to demonstrate your position is correct.


GIThruster wrote:You think you're entitled to criticize science you can't understand.
It is absolutely, ABSOLUTELY, correct that one is at liberty to criticise work that is either not supported by rigorous, repeatable, experimental outcomes OR that does not arrive at the same conclusions as established scientific principles. If the latter is claimed, then the former must be indisputable for the whole to gain credence.

Your claim is that those who seek to criticise must first acquaint themselves with a library of information that you insist they go find for themselves. This is false, particularly on a forum dedicated to Polywell Fusion; it is for you to lay out the scientific case, if you have one.

Your lack on understanding of this principle of science is at the heart of why you fail to comprehend, and respond appropriately to, rational arguments against your position, and so instead you resort to threatening violence.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

GIThruster wrote:Conversation with you is very much like conversation with a five-year old who needs a nap.
Tired 5 year olds often ask the most demanding and pithy questions, and it is a self-opinionated adult with contempt towards those he sees as 'ignorant' who would refuse to answer.

One would suspect that you would also advocate 'slap therapy' for 5 year olds too, for daring to ask questions you do not like.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Not a single thing you are saying is true, chris. All lies and misrepresentations.

I have never threatened anyone here in any way, least of all you. I merely noted you need some slap therapy. That's nothing like a threat.

You did request to know how Jim knows the instrumentation wires are not affecting the balance readings and I explained this to you. So you are lying AGAIN. Just as I have explained dozens of other issues time and again to everyone's satisfaction, EXCEPT YOURS, because you are never satisfied. You are lying when you say I refused to discuss an issue. I did discuss the issue--3X and now is the 4th. We KNOW the instrumentation wires are not affecting the balance because they were completely removed to see if this made a difference in the test results and it does not. This is one of dozens of such tests done to seek out any spurious contribution that can be had. Each time you devise in your mind how a spurious force might be measured, you make a big deal of it without checking to see whether people actually involved in the work have thought of this. You make outlandish charges and abusive comments all justified in the name if science, but in fact, this is just a thinly veiled disguise for your misanthropy.
Your lack on understanding of this principle of science is at the heart of why you fail to comprehend, and respond appropriately to, rational arguments against your position. . .
I haven't seen any rational arguments against my position. Surely you don't think you made one? What did you think my position is?

Lets make a deal, shall we chris? You give me one single argument against what you believe my position is, and if I answer it to everyone's satisfaction here, excepting you of course; then you leave this forum and never return.

Do we have an accord?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

GIThruster wrote:Lets make a deal, shall we chris? You give me one single argument against what you believe my position is, and if I answer it to everyone's satisfaction here, excepting you of course; then you leave this forum and never return.
...and if you don't, then you leave??

chrismb has never entirely excluded the possibility of returning to the forum to discuss developments related to POLYWELL FUSION (remember, that's what the forum is about).

If people here really wanted to discuss this stuff, there are forums dedicated to it, are there not? When you refer to "a festering, malignant disease, looking to spread itself anywhere it can find purchase", does this not amply and better describe your own aims to move from your thruster forums to this FUSION forum?

However, it can be confirmed that if GIT never posts in this FUSION forum again about propellant-less thrusters, then no further posts under chrismb will appear about it either.

Is this to everyone's satisfaction here ('excepting you of course')?

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

coward.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

chrismb wrote:
GIThruster wrote:You think you're entitled to criticize science you can't understand.
It is absolutely, ABSOLUTELY, correct that one is at liberty to criticise work that is either not supported by rigorous, repeatable, experimental outcomes OR that does not arrive at the same conclusions as established scientific principles. If the latter is claimed, then the former must be indisputable for the whole to gain credence.

Your claim is that those who seek to criticise must first acquaint themselves with a library of information that you insist they go find for themselves. This is false, particularly on a forum dedicated to Polywell Fusion; it is for you to lay out the scientific case, if you have one.

Your lack on understanding of this principle of science is at the heart of why you fail to comprehend, and respond appropriately to, rational arguments against your position, and so instead you resort to threatening violence.
Here I agree with chrismb.

If you GIT are so good at this why not teach the rest of us? Tom Ligon taught me. I then taught others. Now the teaching is self sustaining without my efforts.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

GIThruster wrote:coward.
I'm not sure I like the thrust of your argument.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

chrismb wrote:
GIThruster wrote:Lets make a deal, shall we chris? You give me one single argument against what you believe my position is, and if I answer it to everyone's satisfaction here, excepting you of course; then you leave this forum and never return.
...and if you don't, then you leave??

chrismb has never entirely excluded the possibility of returning to the forum to discuss developments related to POLYWELL FUSION (remember, that's what the forum is about).

If people here really wanted to discuss this stuff, there are forums dedicated to it, are there not? When you refer to "a festering, malignant disease, looking to spread itself anywhere it can find purchase", does this not amply and better describe your own aims to move from your thruster forums to this FUSION forum?

However, it can be confirmed that if GIT never posts in this FUSION forum again about propellant-less thrusters, then no further posts under chrismb will appear about it either.

Is this to everyone's satisfaction here ('excepting you of course')?
Fine by me.

My moderating is rather lax but I may start moving posts to the appropriate bins if this sort of thing continues.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply