quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

power,my friend,in science,lies in the ability to demonstrate something,regardless of what any book says.

Yawn.  Except that you don't understand what "demonstrate" means in that context.  What science is useful for is to falsify things.  You probably think that's what you're doing and you would be wrong in any useful sense.  Try reading Karl Popper sometime my exceptionally stupid friend.

You said that textbooks necessitate batteries that run eternally.  However this is not a thing which can be demonstrated purely empirically.  While there is no set of observations (outside of textbooks) which can be guaranteed to be in textbooks.  More importantly there is no set of observations which is sufficient to demonstrate something occurs for eternity.

to pivot my point ruthlessly to the public,who are the ones which count here at the end of the day.

Your English still sucks immensely.  By your own logic what the public believes is also irrelevant.

[profitis]

nah.demonstration is numero uno @sarkeizen.for science that is repeatable by anyone,not just a select few,demos are all powerful.imagine if andrea rossi,s demo was so simple that anyone could repeat.the effect wouldve been monstrous instead of paltry(officialy paltry).anyway,im not here to change science textbooks but just to set the record straight about the karpen device and tell it like it is,an oxygen concentration cell.your harping on what i said about eternity is stupid,until you can prove that you cant observe something eternal,right now in the present moment,your complaint is null and void.many people have seen god @sarkeizen.you wana tell me thats not eternal? Prove it.many have seen the sun,prove that thats not eternal.what the public believes is relevant.half believe in santa claus,because they see santa claus,tv,books,malls etc..they must now see you,unable to uphold kelvin in wikipedia.

[sarkeizen]

demonstration is numero uno @sarkeizen.for science that is repeatable

I don't have a problem with "demonstrating" things.  Just that your usage like most things you type is exceptionally stupid.  You can demonstrate something that adds zero information to a system.  If you add zero information, it's a little stupid to claim that such a thing is science but go ahead argue that something that adds zero information to a system is science.  Please.

Repeatability is important but only insofar as it adds information to a system. You can repeat something as much as you want.  If it doesn't falsify anything then no knowledge is added.  Conversely something may not be repeatable or difficult to repeat and it can still be evidence, it can still add information.

demos are all powerful.

Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself.  Not me. However powerful they are. They are not necessarily science, unless they add information.  So again they take a back seat to falsifying something.

imagine if andrea rossi,s demo was so simple that anyone could repeat.the effect wouldve been monstrous instead of paltry

So if the variability in the demo was so high that it had almost no likelihood of adding information.  Sure it could convince people but it would add no information.  So it would not be science - in any useful sense of the term.  It would be fooling people.

When what moves people to do something or believe something diverges from the information in or added to the system all we are left with is a metric of how stupid people are.

just to set the record straight about the karpen device and tell it like it is

Nope.  You are here to do almost entirely the opposite.  To avoid clear thinking and embrace moronic stupidity.

,an oxygen concentration cell.

You've never seen the device, it's only been examined partially by a few people.  You can't claim the Karpen cell is any such thing.  You've said that when you say "Karpen cell" you don't actually mean the real device.  So you're not really setting anything straight.  You're actually making things less clear.

until you can prove that you cant observe something eternal,right now in the present

Wrong question.  It's not that you can't observe something eternal in the present but you can not observe something eternally in a finite period of time.  Are you saying you can?  Please speak up, if so.

seen the sun,prove that thats not eternal.

I don't need to.  If you recall you *ASSERTED* that something was eternal and I asserted that you can't support your claim.  Which of course I'm correct.

what the public believes is relevant.

Not to the point that was being discussed.  You claimed that what was in textbooks was irrelevant.  However most things in most textbooks are believed by at least one person.  So if textbooks are irrelevant than so are most peoples opinions.

[profitis]

A) no need to add info as it supports given info.you have to show why kelvin statement is needed to satisfy entropy requirements here with the given info and demo.as wikipedia said,an entropy requirement can overwhelm a temperature requirement.im going to stick to that statement and use it and abuse it at my free disposal until you can show otherwise.so basicly youre screwed in theory too never mind demos.in fact,you have to prove that kelvin statement about temperature is needed in any ambient pressure gas concentration cell. B)see above C)see above D)nope E)you dont need to see karpen,s effort.you can replicate it,my point all along.and you can use wikipedia statement on that one too:entropy requirements overwhelm temperature requirements,no need for kelvin again.unless you can show it in theory? F)my statement was that textbooks predict and support something eternal.whats that got to do with observing it?you need to observe the textbook thats all.G)see above.H)yes but still,if half the population of scientists see that your unable to defend kelvin then it might or might not be entertaining.

[sarkeizen]

A) no need to add info as it supports given info

You can not support a hypothesis without adding information.  You also can not add information without falsifying something.  You don't understand what those terms mean.  Do you?

im going to stick to that statement and use it and abuse it at my free disposal until you can show otherwise.

So?  People act stupid all the time.  I don't feel terribly inclined to stop them.  I engaged your statement about textbooks because it was likely wrong and likely resolvable - assuming the other person is debating honestly and not being an obstructionist asshole.

By admitting you will "abuse" something you are admitting you are unethical.  Thanks for discrediting yourself.  

B)see above

You can do an experiment without proper randomization and get the same incorrect result.  Are you arguing that somehow this makes the statement more likely to be true?  If not then, of course repeating an experiment is not as important as adding information.  Since you can repeat and add no information but you can add information without repeating. QED.   Congratulations, one more thing you are stupid about.

D)nope

Actually yeah, you just said that you will happily abuse the information.  You also have said that you don't care if experiments are done poorly (which is just another way of saying they add no information).  So I think you have proved my point for me.  You are here to push a particular idea, not to subject your ideas to any sort of rigor.  You ran away from something as simple as looking something up in a textbook.  You simply had no ability to construct a logical argument.  Dude, face it.  You are all about ignorance, not knowledge.

you have to prove

Nothing.  I have exactly one premise.  That you can't support your statement about textbooks.  So far you've done nothing but prove me right.

E)you dont need to see karpen,s effort.you can replicate it

*ROFL* How do you replicate something that hasn't been observed?

F)my statement was that textbooks predict and support something eternal.whats that got to do with observing it?

You are the one who brought up observing something. You said that instead of looking up something in a textbook I just need to build it.   However since your thesis was a) about textbooks and b) about something that would run an ipod eternally.  You would realize that no number of observations of any kind would support that statement.  Hence all "challenges to build" do not necessarily add any information.  This is why they suck and why your understanding of experimental design sucks.

you need to observe the textbook thats all

I doubt that's true.  As you say, the textbook won't have: "Here is how you build an eternal battery" in them.  So we will end up with you avoiding making a logical argument for probably just as long.