quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen..A) well its observing something recharging itself

Again, please state clearly.  Did you observe something operating FOREVER?

B)a theory in science is just a theory

However it has to be congruent with the majority of evidence.  Which is the better definition than the very stupid one you just made.  In any case, complexity theory and information theory is using the definition that mathematicians use.  There is no room for a proven theorem to be wrong - outside of ZF(C) being wrong which would make all math questionable.  Which is why information theory and complexity theory are so much stronger than Phillips fairy watching. 

C) it is written AND predicted in the biggest textbook

You said all textbooks.  Please cite me one that I can go get out of a library....or say that this is no longer your hypothesis.  Your choice.  Let me know.  Again I'm using the useful definition of the word cite not "quote" not "pretend it's in there somewhere".

Cite.  Produce a piece of text from a respected textbook that unquestionably  makes your case and the title and page number.  That's what you said you could do.  If you can't please man up and admit this is no longer your position.

[profitis]

A)well i observed a mosquito flying round my room like forever yeah @sarkeizen.(try making your question more palatable next time). B)neither i nor you know what phillip has in front of him so its too pre-mature to determine this assumption. C) wikipaedia is a library,the most widely used library in the world in fact.it has borrowed a giant chunk of its info from all the other libraries round the world so can i use it to do that cite @sarkeizen.im begging you please :-).it,l have more impact i promise you. 

[sarkeizen]

A)well i observed a mosquito

Did you observe the battery running forever? Please answer instead of being an obstructionist asshole (again).

B)neither i nor you know what phillip has in front of him so its too pre-mature to determine this assumption.

That depends.  Are you also saying that Phillip doesn't know what he has? That he has no clue about how his device operates?

so can i use it to do that cite

Nope.  You said textbooks.  Not only that but you said EVERY textbook.  This should be incredibly easy if you are correct.  However you are pretending that this is incredibly hard.

Please admit you can't properly support (provide a cite) for your original statement.  Come on, you can do it.

[profitis]

A)can you be more specific? B)im saying you have to ask phillip questions pertaining to phillip.how should i know @sarkeizen? C)aww cmon man.wikipedia is very well respected by the crowd @sarkeizen.who,s gona care what some old book from some old library says?.i want to make an impression for the young science student viewers also @sarkeizen.the library is far from my place and i,d have to hunt the books with a similar tune as that wiki article anyways so it may aswell be wiki @sarkeizen.i want wiki @sarkeizen.please? (-:

[sarkeizen]

A)can you be more specific?

Did you observe it running for an eternal period of time.  That's what observing something "running forever" would mean.

im saying you have to ask phillip questions pertaining to phillip.

Philip indicated that his machine is equivalent to a maxwell's daemon device.  In which case he is either WRONG and doesn't know what he's talking about or it's restricted my complexity theory and information theory.  QED.

aww cmon man.wikipedia is very well respected by the crowd

You said "textbook". ALL textbooks.  Don't you think you need to have at least ONE textbook to argue that "all textbooks" contain something.  You don't even own a single textbook and you are making statements about ALL textbooks?

Come on, just admit you can not support your original argument and make up a new one but first you have to come clean. be honest and man up.  Say it.  You can't support your original statement.