Circular reasoning

[OfficeShredder]

In case it hasn't occured to you, every single one of your posts explainin pulsoid theory heavily references the other posts. For the theory to be at all valid, it must be possible for you to start from known principles, with a simple set of choice axioms that can be laid out, and then work from there with no forward referencing. This would also make it ten times easier to read

[Epsilon=One]

...every single one of your posts explainin pulsoid theory heavily references the other posts.This is because definitions are important. In many cases common words have too many connotations. There are literally hundreds of original concepts related to Pulsoid Theory. They all require their unique words and definitions.

I know of no other way to emphasize these definitions without laboriously including them in every discussion that requires them. I don't believe that any definition I use is circular. I intend them to flow from one to the other in a sequential progression. Undoubtedly, when posting ad hoc, with purposes other than clarity, there may be errors . . . probably quite a few. If you will point out anything that appears as circular, I will try to correct it or clarify it.

I thoroughly understand your difficulty. After, you are familiar with the simple fundamental principles of a Pulsoid (a quantum "field"), hopefully, it will be easier. All I ask is that for what is not clear, please ask questions. Then, I won't have to waste verbiage on what is not necessary. Incredibly, young children pick up the logic with little difficulty; it is hard to unlearn what has been ingrained (impressed). A fun way to begin understanding its strength (and helping me find errors) is to begin with any “outrageous” statement and try to pick apart its logic. For serious study, I would recommend not progressing too far until you thoroughly understand what the Elliptical Constant is; and, what the dynamics of an Emergent Ellipse are. I would expect a few, or more, questions before you have the EC and EE down pat. I would have to write several long essays to do either justice; however, with questions much time can be saved on what would otherwise be extraneous.

For the theory to be at all valid, it must be possible for you to start from known principles…This is a bit difficult because Pulsoid Theory must start from unknown principles. PT depends upon understanding Infinity, the Natural origin of mathematics (refuting Gödel), a clear definition of time, the origin of orthogonal dimensions and the Inverse Square Law, the internal geometry of a quantum “field” and radiant phenomena, and an understanding of inertia as gravity’s reactive force, etc. None of these principles have ever been properly defined let alone explained.

…with a simple set of choice axioms that can be laid out, and then work from there with no forward referencing.Pulsoid Theory demands only one postulate. Axioms are not fundamental; I understand them as starting points that have not been proven. You cannot have a fundamental beginning point that is plural. Pulsoid Theory begins with Infinity/Reality as a singularity that implies motion from all that can be observed . . . then progresses/evolves to human consciousness.

This would also make it ten times easier to readAgreed. Only a few more, but very important, logical points must be posted and aged a bit for proprietary reasons; then, I will begin a simple argument that should be able to move quickly. The most important aspect of PT that should be apparent by now is that its individual logic is difficult to falsify; and, PT is eminently amenable to what is observable and logically provable. See: IPSO (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/IPSO).

Your forum participation is thoroughly enjoyed.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

In case it hasn't occured to you, every single one of your posts explainin pulsoid theory heavily references the other posts. For the theory to be at all valid, it must be possible for you to start from known principles, with a simple set of choice axioms that can be laid out, and then work from there with no forward referencing. This would also make it ten times easier to read
Finally ..........'catching on' are you(?).....only thing is, it is Elliptical reasoning that is indulged in, not Circular :rolleyes:

(I)'m sorta {REALLY!!} surprised you've read it all..... :eek:

[Epsilon=One]

...it is Elliptical reasoning that is indulged in, not Circular :rolleyes:Right on!!! I can tell that you are paying close attention.

(I)'m sorta {REALLY!!} surprised you've read it all..... :eek:Apparently, unlike your close attention to the details, I received the impression that OfficeShredder has not bothered to read much of it.

Though, someone must be. More than 75,000 Views to date; and, no demonstrated, logical disputes concerning any of the premises.

Even academia hasn't the courage to step forward and debate the many unique claims, which tells more about the fear that prevails and grips "higher" education concerning peer review and attacks on the status quo rather than the lack of debatable Pulsoid Theory premises.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Just so we keep it straight, it is probable that EP=0's 'Elliptical Finding' (As (I) have said before) Is something or has some value, BUT It is NOT the only needed Item to prove out a T.O.E. as there are Several Keys (thoughts/idea/understandings) that need be either fixed or explained or introduced as to be able to accomplish such a goal....EP=0's furtherances of her/his one(?) good idea isn't all that he/she seems to think of it as being....Leastways to the Best of My Knowledge.....

As for the rest that is Character, and clearly She/he and (I) have conflict there as (I) found him as Lacking in the needed respect of Keeping his/her distance respective of Feeeling me, and (I) also found the Verabl exchange herein as one wherein he/she kept trying to introduce subtle Insult/derision in his/her postings towards me....

The rest ....is History!(?)

[ste]

... he/she kept trying to introduce subtle Insult/derision in his/her postings towards me

Who's insulting who now. Your replies have had a harsh tone to them for quite a while now. I can understand why one would at least subtly want to retaliate at this point.

Also, your ability to "feel" people no matter how (im?)probable, is more than a little hard for newcomers to believe. I don't know, I might be wrong, since I know very little about this 'ability' of yours. Care to direct me to any posts describing your ability in more detail? I had difficulty finding anything without having to weed through your 46 page thread. In addition to the aforementioned, you 'challenge' him to stay away from you yet intentionally try to provoke him in posts like the above.

Whether you like it or not, it seems to me that Epsilon=1 at least tries to explain himself logically. Regardless of explanations being circular, or dependent on a heapload of definitions, a keen reader can gain important bits and pieces of information from browsing the posts. If not, hopefully interest will be kindled in the effort to determine the way things work instead of just accepting the 'better established' theories as dogma.

Don't like it? Debate it. Provide logical and rationalized argument other than than simply dismissing it without further thought. Thats what they're there for anyways. Otherwise, your insults serve no further purpose than being a waste of time to all who read them. These forums are a place for intellectual discussion, not personal bashing of others because their beliefs or ideals differ from yours.

Even if half of it is untrue, his postings SHOULD prompt questioning the status quo. Why accept a reality that you cannot understand?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Who's insulting who now. Your replies have had a harsh tone to them for quite a while now. I can understand why one would at least subtly want to retaliate at this point.
Also, your ability to "feel" people no matter how (im?)probable, is more than a little hard for newcomers to believe. I don't know, I might be wrong, since I know very little about this 'ability' of yours. Care to direct me to any posts describing your ability in more detail? I had difficulty finding anything without having to weed through your 46 page thread. In addition to the aforementioned, you 'challenge' him to stay away from you yet intentionally try to provoke him in posts like the above.
Whether you like it or not, it seems to me that Epsilon=1 at least tries to explain himself logically. Regardless of explanations being circular, or dependent on a heapload of definitions, a keen reader can gain important bits and pieces of information from browsing the posts. If not, hopefully interest will be kindled in the effort to determine the way things work instead of just accepting the 'better established' theories as dogma.
Don't like it? Debate it. Provide logical and rationalized argument other than than simply dismissing it without further thought. Thats what they're there for anyways. Otherwise, your insults serve no further purpose than being a waste of time to all who read them. These forums are a place for intellectual discussion, not personal bashing of others because their beliefs or ideals differ from yours.
Even if half of it is untrue, his postings SHOULD prompt questioning the status quo. Why accept a reality that you cannot understand?
Your BIAS sticks out like a sore thumb, logic and reason tells me that you have read LOTS of his work, and Little or NONE of mine, otherwise you would know why, but you do not as you have not taken the time you admonish me to take with him....(I) at least have done that! and realized that anytime anyone demostrates that he is wrong, on anything, the (HIS/HER) ATTACKING CONTINUES....

My 'Harsh tone' keeps him/her at Bay(?) and keen to the reality of just what his efforts over the last year have accomplished respective of me.

Perhaps before you post you should first read.

His 'right'(?) to retaliate should be based upon an UN-provoked attack upon him, but it isn't as she/he is the one provoking as she/he is still responding to my posts even thought she/he knows DAMN WELL (I) cannot see what he/she is posting!!

Stupidity of one trying to force another, him/her trying to force me back into conversation with them, my answer is NO! :mad:

As for my ability, he/she knows about it, BUT (I) CANNOT TRUST THEM ABOUT IT as they do not/will not even admit it to me, such clear-willful IN MY FACE DIS-Honesty is incredulously SHAMEFUL!

[ste]

Perhaps before you post you should first read.

I would be glad to read. But as you obviously missed in my post, I do not have time to sort through a 46-page thread full of disarranged rantings. At least try to open new threads and give them respective titles every once and a while.

If you are unwilling to do the above, once again I ask you to DIRECT me to relevant posts which you believe are worth my time reading. I am always open to hearing both sides of a story. I am not trying to judge the two of you, I am simply remarking based on what I observe.

Stupidity of one trying to force another, him/her trying to force me back into conversation with them, my answer is NO!

... as she/he is still responding to my posts even thought she/he knows DAMN WELL (I) cannot see what he/she is posting!!

Whoever said that you are being forced to do anything? You speak as if the forum either belongs to you, or you are your only reader. You have just as much of a 'right' to respond as he, my only challenge being that you do it in a calm and unprovoked manner. This forum exists so that others can read, respond, and debate other's thoughts. Do you realize the irony of posting in a public forum and asking one not to respond? If you don't appreciate the response part, why not create a blog where you have full control over moderation?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Surely since you have admitted that recognition of my ability is somewhat strained in your view you could realize that (I) have a need to protect myself from two vantages/points inside (myself) and outside (posting) so letting some one who has shown a propensity towards using one to gain the other, and doesn't either cease it, or even admit to it, is a (potential) 'danger' to me, especially when (I) can see that they are, in a manner within themselves, (my Opinion) fooling themselves on several 'understandings'...

'Directing you' would be asking you to read the history of the last year in exchanges between him/her and (I), that Long thread has less to do with it then you know, most of what went on between him/her and (I) was in "Other threads" Some (I) started.....too.....Et al.

(I)'ve sorta Not the time either....or perhaps it is 'the will' as (I) see no Profit in it as it will then lead him on to, again, 'defend' himself (Inclusive of 'offensive and/or attack') such that (I) end up sorta encouraging Her/He to Using it as Ammunition-against me-blindly...not worth the time.

Does that help?

She/His questioning (of) me does little good as (I)'ve been explicite "Not on the Internet".....soooo......

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

(SNIP) This forum exists so that others can read, respond, and debate other's thoughts. Do you realize the irony of posting in a public forum and asking one not to respond? If you don't appreciate the response part, why not create a blog where you have full control over moderation? (SNoP)

If (I) am not 'allowed' (the Irony?) to do as you say, why then Do (I) have an Ignore List? which EP=0 is on....(I) might Add....and the forum 'supplies' ....a "Buddy" list to if (I) want to, Too.

[ste]

Its not a matter of being allowed. You must realize however that the forum does not exist solely to satisfy the agenda of one person. There are other people who read these threads, too. Let me ask you this. What purpose do you intend to fulfill by posting, and if you dislike responses, why do you continue?

And if you dislike the postings of a certain person, and you have used the "block" feature provided by the forum, why do you still complain? You're using the feature as it was meant to be used.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Its not a matter of being allowed. You must realize however that the forum does not exist solely to satisfy the agenda of one person. There are other people who read these threads, too. Let me ask you this. What purpose do you intend to fulfill by posting, and if you dislike responses, why do you continue?

And if you dislike the postings of a certain person, and you have used the "block" feature provided by the forum, why do you still complain? You're using the feature as it was meant to be used.
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

It is a matter of being allowed as permissions are what we all have and have as restrictions upons ourselves as well, it is called conduct....

Where do you get the idea/believe that these forums exist simply to satisfy the agenda of one person, (Or that (I) believe that of myself) although that is exactly the impression, from their posting nature/habits (I) have had of EP=None since the beginning.

The pupose of posting is communication/exchange with whomever else is (might be) using this forums, as for disliking ("Disliking" has little or nothing to do with it, found out! NO POINT-no Purpose) response(s) that is why (I) blocked EP=none (Do you know what reason and logic are?) who is still responding to My postings and (I) have LOTS of prior experience that tells me about his sarcaustic nature and Really Rude mannerisms that (I) would believe that because he is still posting around me he is still indulging himself in that....

Aside from that who made you the judge jury and inquisitioner?

Where do you get off attempting what your trying to do?

What do you really know about any of this?

(I) happened to notice that finally someone else recognized that 'circular reasoning', go read EP=NONES' Proof of God, when you get to the part where he admits to be using circular reasoning show it to me, show me his circular reasoning...(Cause it isn't there, it's simply a verbal fooley/ploy in his typing message style)

(I) admitted in a recent post (I) Has slipped (Once?) and noticed that He was still responding to what (I) type up...why aren't you going after Him? after all, he doesn't let ANYONE post a thread that he doesn't stick his Nose into .....to SELF REFERENCE...

Go read more and show me you've learned a little or please accept that (I) will no longer answer you as it appears that you are simply HIS SHILL.

Bye

[ste]

I got the impression that I mentioned because it appeared that you do not consider that other people besides read your responses as well. On one hand, I can see how you would be annoyed. On the other, like I've said before, you've blocked him so why care.

And as I mentioned in a prior post, I am NOT any kind of judge or executioner, far from it. I am simply questioning your motives to respond to posts like this, seemingly (speculation, not judgment) with the intent of provoking people who read his posts.

I'm not 'trying' to disrupt, change, or move anything. Like I've said before I am merely commenting on what I've seen so far. Please stop taking my comments so personally and stop making blind accusations that I am his underling. IF you are trying to intimidate, it is not working.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(SNIP) I'm not 'trying' to disrupt, change, or move anything. Like I've said before I am merely commenting on what I've seen so far. Please stop taking my comments so personally and stop making blind accusations that I am his underling. IF you are trying to intimidate, it is not working. (SNoP)

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

"Otherwise it appears that" is what (I) had typed (said) as in "Seems" "Looks like" "could be" ....no Definitive "You are" .....so, you are following your own rules therein....Right?

Intimidate? Me? How? ....after all, you adressed me, and introduced this foistest...Right?

[Epsilon=One]

"Otherwise it appears that" is what (I) had typed (said) as in "Seems" "Looks like" "could be" ....no Definitive "You are" .....so, you are following your own rules therein....Right?

Intimidate? Me? How? ....after all, you adressed me, and introduced this foistest...Right?The subject is: Pulsoid Theory; and, the string is: Circular Reasoning, as applied to PT postings.

Please stay on topic. And, please stay off personalities.

Your disruptions are intolerable to the intellectual pursuit of the forum. If you can't constrain yourself within the rules; please limit your comments to your Philosophy General or Philosophy of the Arts rants.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

ste EP has ~1338 postings, myself ~ 1098 the forum has ~ 4368 so he and (I) have ~ 2436 postings leaving ~ 1932 to the various one post wonders (Et al) and the advertisers who get deleted. (once they get around to it, saving server space)

So if you want to know of the exchange(s) well, it's a Rich Field.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

So Ste as (I) had told you, he cannot keep himself out of anyone elses threads, (PROOF) (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=2017) he responds everywhere, and has little if anything to contribute other (Not even "two cents") then the sound of his flatulence when he endevours to give his 'pressed ham' on the glass, showing everyone little else other then that he is Incontinent as that is what he has left running down the glass


He is instigating and Gods' Grace (I) will not bite, nor give quarter to one who has clearly demonstrated himself as having only the value of an Old (Insulting) Heckler, as WELL proven by the simply fact that it is HE who Will not go away and it is HE WHO INSTIGATES IT (STARTS IT)

Is it clear yet?

[Epsilon=One]

If (I) am not 'allowed' (the Irony?) to do as you say, why then Do (I) have an Ignore List? which EP=0 is on....(I) might Add....and the forum 'supplies' ....a "Buddy" list to if (I) want to, Too.You miss ste's point. And, you are not responsive to his concerns.

Please stay on topic, which is "Circular reasoning" with regard to Pulsoid Theory.

If you can't stay on topic at least be responsive to what you quote.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

ste please go read post #6) HERE (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=2017)

Did some searching EP's inclusion in threads (http://physicsmathforums.com/search.php?searchid=32956) ='s 447 out of 781 total (discount 20-30% as advertising that has been deleted) and we get him in on More then Half of all of the threads in this forum ......probably around roughly 450 out of 550(?) useful (Not spam) threads


Me? = 72 threads, of which (I) have started Fifteen myself.

(he has started 221)

.....tells the tale of the 'tape' and whom really is the 'worm' in point.....

O.K.?

Try this one.....Symmetry (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=938&page=3) (Posting #22) a self reference as to point to something that at least accomplishes something, leastways (I) believe it does....

...as Symmetry is "No more" a viable/usable description of the working real universe, leastways not in it's previous status....

[Epsilon=One]

Try this one.....Symmetry (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=938&page=3) (Posting #22) a self reference as to point to something that at least accomplishes something, leastways (I) believe it does....

...as Symmetry is "No more" a viable/usable description of the working real universe, leastways not in it's previous status....Symmetry is alive and well; though, it's fundamentals are not well understood by many of those that are standard model proponents.

Please read a bit concerning super symmetry (http://myweb.cebridge.net/hem/hem/susy.htm) (SUSY), which currently is at the forefront of explaining our environment of Reality (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/R).

Of course, to critique symmetry is rather futile when considering the metaphysical aspects and irreconcilability of all the standard models of academic, theoretical physics.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Don't tell me, now he is suggesting that (I) am "off topic"?? but if you goto post #6 we find that it was ste whom led it in that direction ...and myself? (I) was simply responding to the Offensive nature of their lead, but it would be the Norm for Poo/Pees inasmuch as the sheer number of times that he "led it astray" in numerous postings.....

......only to later accuse me of having gone "off topic"....

Hey that makes me still on topic as it is yet another example of HIS CIRCULAR reasoning(s)...... :eek: :D :p


Nothing new there....

Oh Yes, if (I) look bad for doing this, well tough cause (I) need to protect two sides of myself inside and outside.....do any of you have a clue what 'that' (Poo/Pees) feeels like from the inside???

(I) thank God that by God's Grace he can be Ignored and thereby excluded completely!......not a nice feeeling in that one, not a nice feeeling to me

(Singularity for a heart? ring any bells?)

Oh Yes, he would also want me to stop as (I) am probaly hitting just a little to close to home for his intellectual comfort zone....and some of you might just figure him out too......he doesn't want that!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI


This thread Post #22 (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=938&page=3) (I) posted this...

So, if the Work of Ms Noether is actually wrong, then .....so is yours.

Ms Noether explains that a Perfect rod translates through space perfectly, and even admits knowledge/knowing that that is NOT the case in reality.....

So what is Physics? Idealized (by usage of mathematics) perfection or Reality as the Non-Idealized (Idiosyncratic) event? ...a redundant question as application of Logic to the Premise of the Noether work tells us that it is Founded upon a Perfection that is NOT observed/observable which is why (I) note that it is even admitted that it is Known that reality does NOT follow "Perfect translations through Space"

Nice work though. Basically explaining that "Symmetry" in it's current conjecture is Wrong as a Descriptor of reality as reality acts and is Asymmetrical....yet whatever thereafter (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=225&page=26&pp=10) (Post #251 Pg26) Begins to defend String Theory as a Theory 'not to be written off so easily', even though ALL of String theory is BASED ENTIRELY UPON SYMMETRY WORKING as descriptor of reality (It isn't!)

Yet if we examine the records (His History) then we find posting like this one in this thread Physics, Astronomy, Math, & Philosophy Forums > Dr. Elliot McGucken's Announcements > The Death of String Theory His post #3 (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=1236) Where he is basically agreeing with a fellow moderator about how string theory is WRONG, but it isn't as clear as can be, so search His name and the words string and theory (47 results (http://physicsmathforums.com/search.php?searchid=33130)) and you will find he has been attacking it for some time, till (I) showed how it was no longer a Viable Theory as it's premising introduction is based upon Symmetry and Symmetry is WRONG....then we find out that he is NOW claiming that HIS theory SAVES (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=1348) String theory

So, that is HIS Circular reasoning and it is COMPLETELY BOGUS >> ALL AROUND


(Yes, (I) know!! and (I) know that (I) am doing it! too!!)

[Epsilon=One]

...he is NOW claiming that HIS theory SAVES (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=1348) String theory

So, that is HIS Circular reasoning and it is COMPLETELY BOGUS >> ALL AROUNDAs usual, your reasoning is without logic. Assuming the "he" and "HIS" is referring to myself, I do maintain that String Theory is based upon many false premises; most of which are associated with the standard models.

However, concepts of Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis) do resurrect the primary assumptions of String Theory. Actually, Pulsoid Theory (PT), that is over 50 years old, can be said to be the beginning of String Theory, which went quite astray when interpreted by (and combined with) standard model, academic, theoretical physics.

There is no contradiction with any of my statements concerning String Theory (ST).

Obviously, there is much that you misinterpreted and misunderstood with your research concerning PT and ST.

I would suggest that before you make ridiculous statements concerning Pulsoid Theory that you ask questions until you understand where the logic fails . . . or succeeds.

Your manner of attack is completely without scientific merit.

I doubt if you understand the Elliptical Constant (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) and its importance; or, the dynamics of emergent energy as heuristically described by dynamic separation (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DS) of a dimensionless point within a dimensionles sphere in the manner of an Emergent Ellipsoid (http://www.EmergentEllipse.com).

Resoloids (http://www.Resoloid.com), the resonance of matter and light, depends upon the oscillation (slide, swing, and vibration) of string-like motion.