Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Walter Russell, Im so sorry....................

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Walter Russell, Im so sorry....................

    ................so sorry that MOST of your hardcore followers are INSANE.

    Well, after about 20+ encounters with these moonbats, Ive had it with their insanity.


    Lets get honest, Walter Russell is right on about 75% or so of what he says (OTHER than his religious twaddle). [no offense, or at least not much].

    Running across these people is like running into the Taliban of cultist "strange-ness"
    Science and religion dont mix , physics/science and METAphysics DO mix.

    Walter Russell, bless his little heart, ....dropping out of school at the at the AGE OF 9,....that wasnt the wisest choice.
    Considering MOST "experts" dont even get 30% of the "big picture" right, and Russell getting 75 or 80% right is HIGH PRAISE in my book........


    however Russell suffered many very serious mental 'defects'

    1. he denied the Ether
    2. he had NO CLUE WHATSOEVER what electricity was from dielectricity / electrostatics.
    3. Some of his conclusions are outright mind bendingly absurd.
    4. Ultimately Russell replaced the Ether and logical Platonic Emanationism (uttelry opposite BOTH nihilistic atomism AND "old guy in the sky" Creationism) with just ANOTHER form of materialistic atomism.

    After running across yet another one of his "all or nothing Russell all the way" insane followers is about all I can stand.
    ....these people are moonbats.

    Its like running into Einstein cultists "what?!!! How dare you say Einstein was wrong........"

    Yes, demented lunatics can turn scientific persons into CULT figureheads.
    Its just a wee bit too sick for my blood.

    I seen this form of trash out of Einstein followers
    Ricky Feymann cult followers

    and ESPECIALLY Walter Russell koolaid drinkers.

    Heck, I support 75% or so of what Russell said.......but when it comes to the "true believer" moonbats, that 25% is heresy
    here, folks, is where religious nonsense meets logic and flushes wisdom and common sense down the toilet.

    You would think MYSELF, digitizing Russells works, and spreading them out LIKE CRAZY to everyone would be enough.


    Noooooooo, you have to drink the Koolaide and accept the insane ILLOGICAL trash Russell espoused that is absolutely unwise, untrue and PURE 100% nonsense.



    Blind devotion, like any religion, is just a mild form of insanity.

    As an ancient philosopher once said "I will praise him where he is right, but I will not praise him where he is wrong"

    This absolutist Deification of Russell as someone who wrote and said NO WRONG is

    1. pathetic
    2. absurd
    3. laughable
    4. insane
    5. Cult-ish
    6. blind religious dogmatism.

    Wally Russell was FAR from infallible in his conclusions.

    After running across the "Walter Russell Taliban" cult followers ONE TOO MANY TIMES is about enough.



    All this moonbat trash reminds me of this comedy bit....100% JUST LIKE IT:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDmeqSzvIFs


    beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life down here
    Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 09-07-2014, 03:39 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
    4. Ultimately Russell replaced the Ether and logical Platonic Emanationism (uttelry opposite BOTH nihilistic atomism AND "old guy in the sky" Creationism) with just ANOTHER form of materialistic atomism.
    I don't see what's wrong with nihilistic materialistic atomism.

    Comment


    • #3
      taliban isnt a cult. its a government cia op. but hey. sun worship, is also a cult.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Dingus View Post
        I don't see what's wrong with nihilistic materialistic atomism.





        I dont know whats wrong with arsenic either, its good sprinkled on toast.

        Comment


        • #5
          I thought Id add this to my book:

          I must give remission to quoting Walter Russell and frame him properly lest there is a misunderstanding as I have noticed from prior editions of this work and its reaction from Russell cultists, while he was roughly 75% accurate in his position, his 30% or so of inaccuracy is stunningly demented, namely his rejection of the Ether and his incapacity to differentiate electricity from dielectricity among many intellectual conclusions and failure Russell committed; dropping out of school at the age of 9 (essentially utterly education whatsoever) did him harm ultimately. His dogmatic cult-like followers have deified Russell to a cult figurehead and they are rather an insane and rabid lot of moonbats. As an ancient philosopher once said “I will give him great praise for his accuracies, but I will not do so on his failures.” Blind dogmatic “all or nothing” devotion to the ‘deified dead’ as regards Russell or anyone is the realm of cultish maneuvers which cannot be intelligent or logically supported. Such rabid insanity can be seen of followers of Russell, Einstein, Feynman and a few others. The difference being of course that Russell was roughly 80% correct, whereas Einstein and Feynman were 80% wrong.


          Stunningly important is the fact that Walter Russell never and at no time defines, or attempts to even broach the topic of what a FIELD is. Having digitized his works and making quick work of a word search of ‘FIELD’ will reveal absolutely nothing whatsoever in his three main works. As I have taught many people, you can tell more about what someone doesn’t say than what they do say. Absence is as strong or stronger than presence. Any incapacity to define the term FIELD an utter incompetence and abysmal failure of the absolute highest magnitude. Everything is fields, absolutely everything; as such an absolute failure to broach the topic is a monumental failure that must be pointed out.

          Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 09-07-2014, 03:16 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            You want to add that, then you should certainly do so! It is your book isn't it?

            Just,... perhaps... well... look here:

            Originally posted by TA
            ... he was roughly 75% accurate in his position, his 30% or so of inaccuracy ...
            accurate and inaccurate are mutually exclusive. What is accurate can not be inaccurate and vice versa. Yet Walter was (about) 75% accurate and (about) 30% inaccurate, you say. That adds up as 105% ? Was he more than 100%? If so, we should all join his cult!


            Originally posted by TA
            The difference being of course that Russell was roughly 80% correct
            So he was 75% accurate and 80% correct, so 5% of his inaccuracies are still correct.

            No offence, but, did you finish primary school, TA?

            Ernst.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ernst View Post
              No offence, but, did you finish primary school, TA?
              Ernst.


              Hence the word "roughly" 70-80 accurate

              roughly 20-25% inaccurate.



              I dont do sophistry. 6 years college, and 7 foreign languages.




              Originally posted by Ernst View Post
              accurate and inaccurate are mutually exclusive.
              Ernst.

              Absolutist fallacy
              . Try again.

              One might be right about some things and utterly wrong about others.

              What one is accurate about has no exclusivity either mutually or otherwise as pertains what one is INaccurate about or pertaining to.




              I suggest a course in logic for you.



              Originally posted by Ernst View Post
              What is accurate can not be inaccurate and vice versa.
              Ernst.

              As pertains his position, a "position" is not a singular entity by a spectrum of views and conclusions.
              As such he is both accurate on points, and utterly inaccurate on others.

              Again, I suggest a course in logic that you might grasp simplex deductions.

              Your position is untenable.



              ( its cannot, not 'can not' )
              Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 09-08-2014, 03:10 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
                Hence the word "roughly" 70-80 accurate
                roughly 20-25% inaccurate.

                Shall I say it?
                Nah!
                I will leave it there

                Originally posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
                I dont do sophistry. 6 years college, and 7 foreign languages.
                No it is:
                You don't do sophistry, 6 years college, nor 7 foreign languages. Among others as math and logic.

                Originally posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
                One might be right about some things and utterly wrong about others.
                ...
                As pertains his position, a "position" is not a singular entity by a spectrum of views and conclusions.
                Of course otherwise it would even be impossible to be partly right (as in x%) and partly wrong (as in 100-x-y%)
                You can be neither wrong or right on some point, hence the -y%.
                But the wrong points can not be right, or vice versa....

                Ah, what am I doing here? Trying to explain the obvious while you are trying to wriggle your way out of your obvious mistakes.
                I'm going to do something more useful!


                Ernst.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ernst View Post

                  Ah, what am I doing here? Trying to explain the obvious
                  Ernst.

                  you explained nothing. Youve made some obtuse and sophistic statements of pure logomachy




                  Originally posted by Ernst View Post

                  You can be neither wrong or right on some point
                  Ernst.


                  Strawman fallacy, I never said he was both right and/or on wrong only as per ANY (single) POINT

                  Only as pertains the full spectrum of his POSITION, which is multifold, as is anyone's on a broad topic and its explanation.

                  Youve been caught twice already in insidious errors of egregious breaches in logic and fallacies.


                  I stated earlier "As such he is both accurate on points, and utterly inaccurate on others. "


                  "Points" being plural. All points of which comprise a POSITION, which is a spectrum of collected POINTS, ...within which some are accurate, others inaccurate.



                  Insert 25 cents and try again, this time without the transparent fallacies and sophistry.


                  Your attempt to reconcile your errors has both failed and even reversed progress.
                  Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 09-08-2014, 04:13 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
                    I don't know whats wrong with arsenic either, its good sprinkled on toast.
                    You must be confused by all that arsenic you've been consuming. I was talking about materialism. I wonder if the arsenic poisoning has also been linked to over-use of emoticons, line-breaks & rambling.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Dingus View Post
                      You must be confused by all that arsenic you've been consuming. I was talking about materialism. I wonder if the arsenic poisoning has also been linked to over-use of emoticons, line-breaks & rambling.


                      If you dont know what is wrong with materialism , in absolute, then all hope is lost.


                      As for emoticons, I love to laugh.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Well, to the best of my knowledge every thing can be explained as being either made of matter or as the result of the movement of matter. How can you have a wave or a vortex without matter? It's like the nebulous explanation of a "field" you always get so riled up about.

                        I don't know much about Walter Russell, but I agree with him that the known periodic elements could be arranged on a diagram in a far better order than the current periodic table. When done properly it should accurately predict the properties of matter not present on the periodic table possibly including sub-hydrogen matter. And I don't really think there'd be a true beginning or end to the periodic table. As far as I'm concerned, it's turtles all the way down.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Dingus View Post
                          Well, to the best of my knowledge every thing can be explained as being either made of matter or as the result of the movement of matter. How can you have a wave or a vortex without matter? It's like the nebulous explanation of a "field" you always get so riled up about.


                          In the chain of things, as per an analogy, matter/mass are flies around the horse dung.


                          You have several steps before getting to matter, namely the dung, then the horse, then the "feed" (as it were).


                          A wave is qualifier and means nothing in itself.
                          A vortex is qualifier and means nothing in itself.
                          A field is qualifier and means nothing in itself.


                          wave of what
                          vortex of what
                          field of what.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Ernst View Post
                            You want to add that, then you should certainly do so! It is your book isn't it?

                            Just,... perhaps... well... look here:


                            accurate and inaccurate are mutually exclusive. What is accurate can not be inaccurate and vice versa. Yet Walter was (about) 75% accurate and (about) 30% inaccurate, you say. That adds up as 105% ? Was he more than 100%? If so, we should all join his cult!




                            So he was 75% accurate and 80% correct, so 5% of his inaccuracies are still correct.

                            Ernst, I am 100 and 10% behind you on this one!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
                              In the chain of things, as per an analogy, matter/mass are flies around the horse dung.


                              You have several steps before getting to matter, namely the dung, then the horse, then the "feed" (as it were).


                              A wave is qualifier and means nothing in itself.
                              A vortex is qualifier and means nothing in itself.
                              A field is qualifier and means nothing in itself.


                              wave of what
                              vortex of what
                              field of what.
                              I have no idea what you're on about.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X