User talk:CowlishawDavid

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)

This doesn't prove a thing. If you are no longer able to modify it, that's unfortunate, as you will not be able to add any actual evidence that the device works. Has anybody else published any evidence? Reproducibility is the cornerstone of science, of course. bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You wrote: "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". One thing this misses is that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a place for doing original research or "challenging the current dogma". Cardamon (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that challenging dogma is how some science is done, but not, by any means, all.

However, the Wikipedia is a not a science site; it is simply millions of summaries of what are generally considered to be WP:RELIABLE sources. Unfortunately material you (or I or any other editor here) have written that has not been through a peer review process or similar, cannot be included in the Wikipedia, as it is not generally considered reliable, although what it says might well be true nevertheless. The Wikipedia is verifiability over truth, and your work is not (currently) verifiable. -Rememberway (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

OK Rememberway and Bobrayner, I will try a different approach, if you both will stop trying to alter history to TOTALLY exclude my work, and the findings of many others around the world. Stay tuned!

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -Rememberway (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing editwarring and personal attacks

Please stop. I strongly recommend that you either try to discuss a compromise on the article's talkpage, or you try to find some other wikipedia article to improve. Angrily pushing the same text over and over again is unhelpful. bobrayner (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok Bobrayner, I will refrain from posting to the main definition of Inertial_Propulsion, if you will recognize my efforts in the field in the Discussion page.

I TOTALLY understand that controversial subjects that have the mantle of Dogma on it's shoulders has an uphill battle. I only request that others look over what I have done in the field, and debate the evidence, rather than throw stones at "the other", that does NOT conform to current beliefs.

Do you have any creative suggestions for how to add the GIT (Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster) definition of machine types to the main page? It is a clearly novel approach to the subject, and has had positive (as well as negative) results in the real world.

"Force Rectifying" angular accelerations to produce linear acceleration as a "footloose" example of "tractoring" on the "Zero Point Field" has actual physical examples to give it credence, but the intolerance of science as a religion prevents rational debate, and examination.

When I whirl around on a merry-go-round, the forces I feel tugging me off of that ride, to the outside, are NOT a result of tiny bullets, impinging on me!

ALL of matter, that has "inertia" feels it's place in this universe through some kind of interaction with the universe around it.

While the "Aether" was discredited because it did NOT conform to our definition of a classical gas, the Zero Point Field (Rueda, Puthoff, and Haisch), describes a coupling of baryonic matter with it's surroundings.

This is the medium that the GIT series of thrusters "tractor" on.

I am a fairly simple guy, with beliefs engendered by my experiences, and I refuse to "toe the party line", when reality, trumps "faith".

CowlishawDavid (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)