quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

So why is it then impossible for you to point out how the textbook assertion

It's not impossible.  It's just infeasible and it's infeasible because as it stands your assertion appears to be "Somewhere there exists a textbook from which a formal argument can be made for the violation of 2LOT".  You could equally argue that "Somewhere there exists a textbook from which a formal argument can be made for the existence of seventeen eyed fish".  Does that make the existence of seventeen eyed fish likely?

[MarkE]

It's not impossible.  It's just infeasible and it's infeasible because as it stands your assertion appears to be "Somewhere there exists a textbook from which a formal argument can be made for the violation of 2LOT".  You could equally argue that "Somewhere there exists a textbook from which a formal argument can be made for the existence of seventeen eyed fish".  Does that make the existence of seventeen eyed fish likely?

Maybe it was an eighteen eyed fish.

[profitis]

Lol but it is impossible.that's what I'm saying man.it is totaly impossible for you or anyone else to prevent the textbooks given spillover gradient from ending in a total anti-2lot nightmare.you are implying a net change of some sort in the system is taking place when abso-f*****g-lutely none is taking place.your 2nd law says change MUST take place.where is the change in this system taking place @sarkeizen.

[sarkeizen]

Lol but it is impossible.that's what I'm saying man.

No.  You said "why is it impossible".  It isn't. It's just infeasible since your assertion is "somewhere (but profitis won't say) there exists a textbook cite and a formal argument (but profits can't tell you) which ends in a 2LOT violation".

If this *isn't* your argument then you can demonstrate by providing a textbook cite and a formal argument.  However since you can't. Even if this isn't your INTENDED argument.  It's still the STRONGEST reason why it's infeasible.  So until you refute that.  Your "It's impossible to refute because of _____" is an argument that you can simply not make.

Please feel free to try.  Since you have failed at so much in this thread might as well go for the trifecta.

[MarkE]

Lol but it is impossible.that's what I'm saying man.it is totaly impossible for you or anyone else to prevent the textbooks given spillover gradient from ending in a total anti-2lot nightmare.you are implying a net change of some sort in the system is taking place when abso-f*****g-lutely none is taking place.your 2nd law says change MUST take place.where is the change in this system taking place @sarkeizen.

In order to support your position you need to show but one text book citation that states as you claim.  The burden of proving an extraordinary claim falls on the claimant, which in this case is you.  You have over many months of making your claim failed to show even one text book citation that supports your claim.  You present yourself as unable to substantiate your extraordinary claim.  Consequently, I and many others rightly dismiss your extraordinary claim.