Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: quentron.com  (Read 1261510 times)

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2250 on: February 22, 2014, 09:37:27 PM »
Both T and M can be demonstrated
Incorrect.  T as you have stated it.  Can not be demonstrated purely empirically, furthermore the only form of evidence which will satisfy T is a textbook cite.   Both these problems have been proved several times in this thread.

Again, you are simply wrong and are unable to believe that.  Interesting. :D

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2251 on: February 22, 2014, 10:00:48 PM »
yawn @sarkeizen im sitting nice and lazy in my hammock here waiting for you to put the slightest dent on my latest terrorising statement,do me a fave and refill my glass esprit while you paw through the textbooks?:D 

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2252 on: February 23, 2014, 04:39:45 AM »
er
do me a fave and refill my glass esprit while you paw through the textbooks?:D
So in other words you can't support the True Profitis Statement.  Which means you lost. :D

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2253 on: February 23, 2014, 09:03:15 AM »
your criteria isnt the only way to support textbooks @ sarkeizen.read my last statement carefully word for word and you,l see its disgustingly textbooktised.so much so that you have to ask yourself,'hey,why was i ever against the idea of 2 superimposed entropy states in one system?why was i? Why was i?dang!' Equilibrium potential differences can be evil.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2254 on: February 23, 2014, 09:52:27 PM »
your criteria isnt the only way to support textbooks
Nothing about my criteria.  It's your criteria in your True Statement of Profitis.  Which require an ordinary textbook.  Now if you were wrong about that, that's fine.  You can just say so.
Quote
l see its disgustingly textbooktised.
If you have a cite from an ordinary textbook which supports the True Statement of Profitis..  Then feel free to provide it, however before you said you couldn't do this.  Which is probably true and makes me right. :D

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2255 on: February 23, 2014, 11:44:00 PM »
my statement @sarkeizen.the last one..tap-tap-tap(fingers tapping the desk) :D

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2256 on: February 23, 2014, 11:57:56 PM »
my statement @sarkeizen.the last one
...is either unrelated to the True Profitis Statement or unproved.  You can't have both.  This has been proved.

Either pretty much means I win.  Think about it for a change....

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2257 on: February 24, 2014, 12:40:10 AM »
not until you destroy my statement @sarkeizen..the last one..clip..clip..clip(cutting my toenails now)

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2258 on: February 24, 2014, 01:19:28 AM »
not until you destroy my statement @sarkeizen..the last one
As you said it's either irrelevant to the True Profitis Statement or has no cogent argument.  Do you usually go around attempting to disprove irrelevant things or things which have no cogent argument?

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2259 on: February 24, 2014, 01:56:51 AM »
it is highly relevant and exceptionaly cogent in line with textbooks @sarkeizen.i cannot come to you with a textbook argument for a 2nd law breach using textbook words that can be destroyed instantly e.g. 'a oxygen concentration cell is a kelvin bust' (you would just show me a differential pressure o2 cell) but i can come to you with standard formality words:' a equi-pressure oxygen gas electrode overpotential differential cell necessitates an kelvin bust',because its impossible for it to not necessitate a kelvin bust.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2260 on: February 24, 2014, 03:11:15 AM »
it is highly relevant
Not to the True Profitis Statement which is what is being discussed or if it is then there's no cogent argument for it.
 
Quote
i cannot come to you with a textbook argument for a 2nd law breach using textbook words
Sounds like you're conceding my point concerning the True Profitis Statement.  If the True Profitis Statement is false.  That you can't simply use logic and textbooks alone to NECESSITATE the existence and ability to build a battery which will last eternally and continually.

Then say so, plainly.

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2261 on: February 24, 2014, 11:10:08 PM »
@sarkeizen i told you i can use textbooks and formality ALONE to substantiate all 2 of my statements in one shot: in the LAST PROFITIS STATEMENT.you can argue szilard or fenyman or loschmidt or trupp through the whole year but it is impossible to not breach kelvin laws with that last statement of mine.it will go down in history as the definitive kelvin-quencher(at least on this website).be glad @sarkeizen,you were part of this golden moment.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2262 on: February 25, 2014, 01:26:05 AM »
i told you i can use textbooks and formality ALONE to substantiate all 2 of my statements in one shot: in the LAST PROFITIS STATEMENT.
It can't.  In fact you said so yourself.

You said that some fake profitis statement could not be validated with ordinary textbooks...I can quote where you said this if you like.  Since ordinary textbooks are required by the True Profitis Statement for validation any statement which can not be validated by ordinary textbooks is, by your own words excluded from being able of validating the True Profitis Statement

Let me know when you figure it out.  Loser.


profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2263 on: February 25, 2014, 06:11:09 AM »
the ipod statement can be validated by working your way down the last profitis statement,which you can check out using just about any higher grade college physical chemistry textbook @sarkeizen so your above statement is false,null,and void until you prove the last profitis statement to be false,null,and void which you cannot possibly do.if i use standard formality textbook words to declare a kelvin breach you better be prepared to show me wrong or else confess defeat.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2264 on: February 25, 2014, 06:29:17 AM »
the ipod statement can be validated by working your way down the last profitis statement
Sorry, I've laid out a formal logical proof showing you to be incorrect.  If you have a problem with that then you should probably consult the proof.