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
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 152 153 154 155 156 [157] 158 159 160 161 162 ... 219   Go Down

Author Topic: quentron.com  (Read 1268072 times)

memoryman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 758
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2340 on: May 15, 2014, 10:13:15 PM »
profitis, just because something is possible in theory, does not mean it's practical or desirable, especially when working on a nanoscale.
Dr.Daniel Sheehan http://www.sandiego.edu/cas/about_the_college/faculty/biography.php?ID=485 has demonstrated (as far as I am concerned) that LoT2 can be broken; he is not confident that a practical device can be made.
Logged

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2341 on: May 15, 2014, 10:21:37 PM »
Quote from: profitis on May 15, 2014, 09:37:43 PM
Well @markE I did provide a textbook-compatible statement that you could not physicaly or theoretically disprove,AND you`re a scientist.that says alot.I had wanted to join forces with mr hardcastle a few years back but he was on his own mission.I don't hold that against him. there is a certain respect between all demonologists.how do you know for sure that none of his claims were realised?it may be in his interests to fade from the limelight with you and me thinking he,s got zip.we just don't know what's going on behind the scenes.all we know is that on this thread,no proof was given.
Whatever "textbook-compatible" is supposed to mean.  You promised over and over again that you could provide an actual citation and failed to do so.  Mr. Hardcastle has been unable to prove any of his 2nd Law violation claims.  I am sure that he would be delighted if you or anyone else could prove one of his claims for him.
Logged

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2342 on: May 16, 2014, 12:39:32 AM »
If a 2lot violation can be microscopic,what's preventing one from being macroscopic @memoryman.nothing.dr sheehan isn't the only demonologist around town so to draw a final conclusion from one man would be premature wouldn't you say?I doubt that he truly believes that no practical device can be made because I doubt that the people that pay him would want to set alarm bells off in public.
Logged

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2343 on: May 16, 2014, 12:49:04 AM »
Textbook-compatible means you can take a textbook and check if you see a flaw in my statement @markE.you won't find one aside from a 2lot violation.you don't need a citation.what you need is to see if you can physically disprove my statement.or theoretically if you wish.
Logged

memoryman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 758
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2344 on: May 16, 2014, 04:27:57 AM »
Profitis, I did not say that it could not be done: I said it MAY not be able to be made into a viable product.
Not all things can be scaled up or down due to limits of materials, forces. loads etc.
We can make large mirrors for telescopes, but are close to the upper limit for now.

Logged

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2345 on: May 16, 2014, 04:27:59 AM »
Quote from: profitis on May 16, 2014, 12:49:04 AM
Textbook-compatible means you can take a textbook and check if you see a flaw in my statement @markE.you won't find one aside from a 2lot violation.you don't need a citation.what you need is to see if you can physically disprove my statement.or theoretically if you wish.
No citation is no citation.  You promised such a citation and never delivered.  What is ordinary and already accepted as proven does not need to be reproven.  It is extraordinary claims that challenge what is ordinary and accepted that requires proof.  The burden of that proof falls on those who make the extraordinary claims.  If you can and want to meet that burden then the choice to do so is yours.  If you don't whether because you can't or you don't want to then your extraordinary claims carry no weight.
Logged

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2346 on: May 16, 2014, 12:43:33 PM »
A mirror takes the form of mirror thus is limited to a mirrors needs @memoryman.a 2lot violation can creep up in any one of a number of systems(magetic,electromagnetic,electrochemical etc)thus you cannot with any certainty even use the words 'may not.'you'd be surprized what research is going on behind corporate scenes nowdays.if you never saw a 2lot violator on the shelves it is probably because it has been shelved(corporate competition leverage).if you look carefully you,l see more subtle forms of 2lot violators creeping on2 the markets eg certain solar systems,coolers,water heaters etc that are way more efficient than they're supposed to be.
Logged

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2347 on: May 16, 2014, 12:50:49 PM »
@markE the weight of my extra-ordinary claim sir,lies in the fact that you,as a scientist,cannot physically nor mentally counter my extra-ordinary claim.as simple as that.the last scientific statement that I made in this thread still stands,unchallenged.a practical scientific statement is not proof.its the inability of anyone to counter it that pushes it over the proof line.
Logged

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2348 on: May 16, 2014, 01:12:37 PM »
Quote from: profitis on May 16, 2014, 12:50:49 PM
@markE the weight of my extra-ordinary claim sir,lies in the fact that you,as a scientist,cannot physically nor mentally counter my extra-ordinary claim.as simple as that.the last scientific statement that I made in this thread still stands,unchallenged.
We have been through this many times before.  If you suffer the delusion that it is up to others to prove the ordinary, then you are sadly mistaken.
Logged

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2349 on: May 16, 2014, 01:22:22 PM »
Its their choice @markE.if they don't take my statement up for the challenge I gues they'l never know,or want to know.
Logged

memoryman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 758
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2350 on: May 16, 2014, 02:21:40 PM »
profitis, I don't subscribe to the large scale suppression mentality. I would do some active exploration in the LoT2 violations, if I had the resources. Nanotech requires very expensive equipment.
As to others proving an extraordinary claim, I am on MarkE's side.
Logged

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2351 on: May 16, 2014, 11:12:18 PM »
Neither do I fully subscribe to the suppression mentality memoryman.corporates will shelve for a number of reasons beside politics.politics are not a problem unless one becomes too loud or unless one is on a mission to 'break the rules for the sake of breaking the rules'.stupidity.markE wants to see working devices in action,I don't blame him most people do even I do.if he has a lab he can check my claims out anytime he wants to.the only reason I made my claims here is so that I can take credit for for my claims before someone else does.
Logged

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2352 on: May 17, 2014, 04:15:28 AM »
Quote from: profitis on May 15, 2014, 07:52:05 AM
No @sarkeizen.phillip showed a few pictures,and some words.I showed a textbook statement and a video.quite a difference wouldn't you say?
Only if you're stupid.  Which you are. :D
Logged

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2353 on: May 17, 2014, 04:34:56 AM »
Quote from: memoryman on May 15, 2014, 10:13:15 PM
Dr.Daniel Sheehan http://www.sandiego.edu/cas/about_the_college/faculty/biography.php?ID=485 has demonstrated (as far as I am concerned) that LoT2 can be broken; he is not confident that a practical device can be made.
"Demonstrated" must mean something different to you than to me.  I watched a lecture of his from 2011 (which was given at some conference along with a lecture by someone else on "distant healing"?!) and he stated unequivocally that 2LOT has **never** been violated experiementally.   An interesting bit was in the beginning where he mentions the inductive problem with proving 2LOT.  Effectively any empirical fact which can be applied to an arbitrary number of cases requires an infinite amount of evidence to validate.

In the same breath though he says that "If a law could be proved then it would be a theorem".   Complexity theory and information theory approaches 2LOT in precisely that way.
Logged

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2354 on: May 17, 2014, 10:01:02 AM »
So then what kind of evidence would satisfy you that demons exist @sarkeizen. What are your standards for evidence
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 152 153 154 155 156 [157] 158 159 160 161 162 ... 219   Go Up
« previous next »