You seem pretty certain about that.you're saying that if I get published in a journal above ratings 1.8 with a 2lot bust i'm guaranteed a nobel?

I'm confident enough to lay a few thousand on it.  Maybe more.

What does it take to get into a 1.8 journal?

Good science.  Something you know very little about.

What makes you so sure that a nobel will be awarded for overunity in the first place after what I said about the status quo.

Because you didn't make a compelling argument...or any argument really.  In order to erode my confidence you actually have to provide something of substance.   Funny how that works.

Anyway the facts are:  Nobody has published.  There is good reason to publish (there is at least a chance at a Nobel as well as career).  Everyone - according to you can publish a perfectly unarguably unambiguous paper. 

....but no such papers exist.   Sooooo either you are wrong about the ease that unambiguous evidence can be produced or OU is for morons.

And a billion people can publish yes,if all billion are a)copycats b)electrochemists c)aware of my proofs d)prone to publishing e)in the mood for publishing f)able to publish

'
Again, if you are correct then there are billions of candidates who can prove this in an absolute and utterly unambiguous way from which there is no reasonable doubt.   The expectation is: We should see unambiguous published proofs'

End quote

We should?who's we?

Quote from sarkeizen;'
We don't.

End quote

We don't? How many viewers saw hardcastles thread so far?

Quote from sarkeizen:'
Your counter argument:  Each and every one of the billions of people are actively looking out for the stock market instead of wanting a reasonable chance at money equivalent to them working at least twenty-two years. (OECD avg annual salary is around 1/22nd of $1M USD).  Even in countries like Cambodia where the GDP is less than $1M where about 1 in 2 children are chronically undernourished.  Of the 10 Million adults there every single one of them cares more about the stock market than watching children starve?

The likelihood of that is next to nothing.'

End quote

Next to nothing? Show me the evidence please proving that cambodian peasantry will cease to exist by copying my work.

Quote from sarkeizen:'
Also don't you find it interesting that you are now making up excuses for not making money with your idea.  I've offered you two-thousand dollars.  I could probably even go up from there if I was motivated.  All you have to do is get your article published in a journal with a SJR rank greater than 1.8 and fail to win a Nobel prize in two years.   Again you said your evidence is absolutely perfect.  Right.  No possible reasonable doubt but it's all excuses now. LOL!I'm a loser.'

End quote

Lol I've got plenty other ways to make money from my shit mr sarkeizen but let's say I made a decision to publish in an elite journal,how would I go about this? Would I have to join a university team or is it possible to throw it in email form to some random internet 1.8 journal? Are there such journals available for public submissions from a home compuder?

 quote from sarkeizen:'
By "we" I mean "It should be reasonably easily observable."

End quote

To electrochemists yes.I'm not sure what percentage of the population knows what the 2lot is but I'm guessing its minuscule.

 quote from sarkeizen:'
Nobody needs to see hardcastles thread.  This is simply OU.  You have stated many times that your conclusions are obvious from any elementary chemistry textbook.  Remember anyone with access to an elementary chemistry textbook can come to the same conclusions EASILY.   They can validate it a way where there is no reasonable doubt EASILY.'

End quote

Absolutely correct,for those that totaly understand what they are reading and for those that aren't fanaticly devoted to  kelvins statement in the beginning of those same textbooks.at the very least they should see the contradictory discrepency

Quote from sarkeizen:'
However despite all this opportunity.  No published work clearly validating OU.  This is a likely outcome of your assertions.  Hence your assumptions much not be correct.  It's Bayes rule.   Sorry.'
End quote

Bayes rule cannot predict what humans feel like doing or thinking after realizing they are staring ou in the face.

Quote from sarkeizen:'
Sure you can dupe people like any con artist.  However to make money in any legitimate way.  i.e. Making a real product that actually provides OU in an unambiguous way.  Then no.  You don't. '
End quote

Glad YOU think so,wink-wink (:

 quote from sarkeizen:'
Elite journal?! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.  Did you think that's what I was asking?  You are really THAT ignorant?  "Nature" is an elite journal. It's SJR ranking is over 30!  I'm asking for you to get published in a journal with a rank FIFTEEN TIMES LOWER!  Hah! lol! *whew* Ok...but to answer your question:  Every journal is different please read submission guidelines for yourself.  Many these days accept electronic submission.'

End quote

Whoooooaaaarrr!! Who are you @sarkeizen?got some inside info?007 shit? From a kaka-journal to a nobel prize?I might just do it anyways in order to secure my place in history mmmmm yeah.

Quote frm sarkeizen:
'Nope, they don't need to unless you exaggerated about the ease with which it could be validated.  You said a child could validate.  You made all your claims about absolute perfect proof from a high-school textbook.  This is still an enormously massive group of potential validators.

End quote
Majority of people,including children are not interested in validating things they don't know about or have no interest in

Quote frm sarkeizen:
'Doesn't have to.  It just has to say what is the likely outcome.  Sure there can be billions of people who are capable of validating OU in a completely unambiguous way and maybe they all just up and decide that they don't want to upset the stock market.  Bayes rule simply says it's terribly unlikely.   The more (if not most) likely scenario is that your assertion about ease or your assertions about OU are simply incorrect.   Sorry.'

End quote

Most people do not know what ou is and therefore have no interest in it.

Quote frm sark:
'Don't worry you won't do it. '

End quote

Now this deserves a thread all on its own titled:'will they ever give a noble for ou'.what's in it for society to give a noble for ou @sarkeizen? How does this benefit society? Maybe they can shove an award in the contenders hand in such a way as to prevent a general panick eg 'this award is for his research on the limitations of the 2lot or this award is for his research in thermodynamics or some other veiled phrase as opposed to,'this award is for fucking the laws of physics inside-out?' You still haven't told me why you are so sure that such a noble will be awarded for a genuine ou?

Quote frm sark :'Except that's not what I was talking about.  I was talking about you getting published in a 1.8 ranked journal.  It won't happen.  I have offered you thousands of dollars if you do and fail to get the million from the Nobel but you keep making excuses and attempting to shift the argument to the likelihood of getting a Nobel.  How many thousand do I need to offer?'

End quote

What do you have to gain mr sarkeizen.one way you lose money,and the other way? Are you willing to go up to ten thousand dollars..that converts into a decent sum over here where I am

...and not win the Nobel in 2 years.  I'd also add some common sense things like your article can't be retracted in that period.