User talk:CowlishawDavid: Difference between revisions
Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sourced material on Reactionless drive. (TW) |
→June 2011: Response by David E. Cowlishaw |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
== June 2011 == |
== June 2011 == |
||
[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please do not add [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]] or novel syntheses of previously published material to articles as you apparently did to [[:Reactionless drive]]. Please cite a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] for all of your information. Thank you.<!-- Template:Uw-nor2 --> [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 11:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please do not add [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]] or novel syntheses of previously published material to articles as you apparently did to [[:Reactionless drive]]. Please cite a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] for all of your information. Thank you.<!-- Template:Uw-nor2 --> [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 11:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
Well thank you for at least stepping up and citing some kind of reasoning for what I consider unreasonable actions on the part of others Bob Rayner! |
|||
No original research? Are you kidding me? Years of research was reported (both failures and successes), that was also physically verified experimentally by over 20 others world-wide, and is cited on my original, and now archived (and now unalterable by me) open.org/davidc website, on both archive.go-here.com and archive.org in Europe. |
|||
The past updates on that archive collection details those years of experimental research, including the works of others on the subject around the world, beginning with the first physical verifications by James Hurl of Australia, and follows the story through to the last update before I gave up for a while out of exasperation, due to unrelenting stupidity and prejudice (don't confuse our religiously scientific dogma by citing facts). |
|||
The theory of operation I believe is clearly stated, and the "flat earth" prejudice against the subject is apparent in the overall tone and presentation of the balance of the definition of "Inertial_Propulsion". A lone dissenting voice challenging the current dogma is how ALL of science progresses past the ignorance of yesteryears. |
|||
To disallow original research is to attempt to hold ALL of science to a stable state, and ignores the dynamic nature of the search for greater truths than we currently understand. |
|||
Science is NOT a BIBLE, and DOGMA is anathema to the entire process of research! |
|||
[[User:CowlishawDavid|CowlishawDavid]] ([[User talk:CowlishawDavid#top|talk]]) 15:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:15, 15 June 2011
Who and WHY do "THEY" keep messing with me?
IF IN FACT, Inertial_Propulsion is imaginary, and totally science fiction, how does reporting facts and reported physical success in this field, challenge our imaginations beyond our reality?
I have been reposting my research on a nearly daily basis to wikipedia. The "edits" are hidden, and NOT authoratative by ANY stretch of the word!
I am an authority on this subject, because I ran the tests, I shared my experiments to be duplicated by others over many years, and they reported results (some good, some bad).
I have shared the good, and the bad. DEAL WITH IT (but quit frelling with reality!).
David E. Cowlishaw - 12:21 AM, Monday, June 6 2011
June 2011
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to articles as you apparently did to Reactionless drive. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. bobrayner (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Well thank you for at least stepping up and citing some kind of reasoning for what I consider unreasonable actions on the part of others Bob Rayner!
No original research? Are you kidding me? Years of research was reported (both failures and successes), that was also physically verified experimentally by over 20 others world-wide, and is cited on my original, and now archived (and now unalterable by me) open.org/davidc website, on both archive.go-here.com and archive.org in Europe.
The past updates on that archive collection details those years of experimental research, including the works of others on the subject around the world, beginning with the first physical verifications by James Hurl of Australia, and follows the story through to the last update before I gave up for a while out of exasperation, due to unrelenting stupidity and prejudice (don't confuse our religiously scientific dogma by citing facts).
The theory of operation I believe is clearly stated, and the "flat earth" prejudice against the subject is apparent in the overall tone and presentation of the balance of the definition of "Inertial_Propulsion". A lone dissenting voice challenging the current dogma is how ALL of science progresses past the ignorance of yesteryears.
To disallow original research is to attempt to hold ALL of science to a stable state, and ignores the dynamic nature of the search for greater truths than we currently understand.
Science is NOT a BIBLE, and DOGMA is anathema to the entire process of research! CowlishawDavid (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)