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 1261385 times)

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2550 on: June 12, 2014, 06:13:10 PM »
Its two seperate states @markE.one in contact.one seperate.I'm saying when seperate neutrality is favoured.when in contact charged is favoured.unless you can disprove this using textbooks.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2551 on: June 12, 2014, 06:16:11 PM »
My formal argument is that you won't be able to give a damning reason for nonprofitable irreversability in that spillover diagram other than declaring 2lot inviolable @sarkeizen.
Again this is not a formal argument for a violation of 2LOT.  It's also an argument from ignorance. :D

Keep on hiding your formal argument.  It's the only way to spare yourself the shame. :D

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2552 on: June 12, 2014, 06:25:55 PM »
Its not an argument from ignorance @sarkeizen because there's only one option: to show non-profitable irreversability.showing that for ANY other textbook scenario is easy.why not this one?

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2553 on: June 12, 2014, 06:49:38 PM »
Its not an argument from ignorance @sarkeizen
Actually it is.  Making the truth or falsehood of an objective fact (2LOT has or has not been violated) dependent on a persons ability to determine something.  Is pretty much the definition of an argument from ignorance.  Look it up on any website about the informal fallacies.

Again if there's a formal argument for showing that 2LOT can be violated from assumptions contained in ordinary textbooks.  I will destroy it (show it to be false, show that it does not force it's conclusion, etc).  So the only thing keeping your argument from being destroyed is that you are keeping it secret. :D :D :D

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2554 on: June 12, 2014, 07:54:59 PM »
What secrets @sarkeizen?? The diagram is clearly visible straight from google.nothing to hide here. now smash my claim of profitable reversability.or do you want another 50year karpen non-consensus on your hands :D :D

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2555 on: June 12, 2014, 08:00:13 PM »
Where's mark E? Cmon @mark E.neutrality is favoured when seperate.charged is favoured when contact.cmon.destroy this statement otherwise phil will have to come to the rescue :D :D

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2556 on: June 12, 2014, 08:20:05 PM »
What secrets @sarkeizen?? The diagram is...
...not a formal argument.  Too bad you're too afraid (or too stupid) to provide one...Ho hum....

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2557 on: June 12, 2014, 08:54:24 PM »
That doesn't make it any less reversable @sarkeizen try again :D:D

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2558 on: June 12, 2014, 08:56:41 PM »
Where's mark E mr sarkeizen? Why did he run away when I cornered him?

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2559 on: June 12, 2014, 09:09:59 PM »
What you have produced is not a formal argument.  Which is what I said I could snap like a toothpick and what you seemed to claim you had. So it seems reasonable that you're afraid to produce it, or that you don't have one or you can't produce one.

One of those.  Ho-hum....

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2560 on: June 12, 2014, 10:52:04 PM »
As i said,that doesn't make it any less reversable @sarkeizen :D :D :D.

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2561 on: June 12, 2014, 10:53:46 PM »
Where's mark E @sarkeizen? Why did he flee when cornered? :D

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2562 on: June 12, 2014, 11:03:16 PM »
As i said stupidly....
Yawn.  Decide if you want me to destroy a formal argument or not.  If so, present one and I will.  If you don't I'll assume you want to keep any formal argument you may have as far as possible from me. :)

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2563 on: June 12, 2014, 11:25:22 PM »
Oh really @sarkeizen.let's test you then.lets see if you can do better than mark E on the contact emf issue. So I declare: the seperate metals favour neutrality.the contacted ones not.where am I wrong here and why.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: quentron.com
« Reply #2564 on: June 13, 2014, 12:26:45 AM »
Oh really
Sure.  Provide a formal argument, stemming from textbook cite.

The only way you are avoiding massive humiliation is because you either can't or won't.