quentron.com

[profitis]

Sssiiiiggghh @markE.I rest my case geeezzz..

[profitis]

I'm taking my own stand on this issue @mark E.if phills explanation annihilates my case then so be it but you've done nothing but delay delay instead of talking straight TO me but ok let me put it to you this way: may I ask you a question @mark E??

[MarkE]

I'm taking my own stand on this issue @mark E.if phills explanation annihilates my case then so be it but you've done nothing but delay delay instead of talking straight TO me but ok let me put it to you this way: may I ask you a question @mark E??

Again, you just did.  There is nothing I can do to prevent you from asking questions.  Just as there is nothing that I can do that will compel you to actually express a cogent argument that supports your extraordinary claims.

[sarkeizen]

yes sarkeizen doesn't seem to have any appreciation of scientific detail

I don't know how long it's been since Philip wrote a paper and you probably haven't (unless you're Philip).   So for you it's understandable that you can't put together an argument with any useful degree of formalism but Philip it is less so.   However what I and others have asked for is exactly what gets put in papers - the ones that get published anyway.

You need an argument, the argument must stem from things everyone agrees on.  If people don't you will be asked to cite references, if you use a term in a non-standard way you will be called on it.  This is how the peer-review process works and that is how science works.

So I find it amusing that someone who claims to be a scientist (Philip) constantly avoids the kind of formalism which makes science work.  You who have pretensions of being in a lab somewhere don't feel the need to argue your work.

Likely the facts are that Philip is either a fraud, or a has-been who doesn't do real science anymore or someone who lucked into a degree when they were easier to get.  If you actually read the questions he poses to you in the failed Karpen Pile thread they're all trivial.   Not only that but they're based on the assumption that your battery works.  Which is entirely the wrong place to start.  It's far, far, far, far more likely that an anomalous result is the result of error than some breakthrough.

Neither of you have any clue how to argue your case.   Which explains why there is so much squirming when you are asked to formalize your argument.

[profitis]

Ok @mark E.I'm the kid in your classroom now and I'm going to ask you this question sir: will two different neutral metals sitting under vaccuum close to each other but NOT touching remain permanently neutral sir.(the temperature is uniform throughout and well below the thermionic emission temperature of both samples)