Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[sarkeizen]

so you think that all of them "retreat" because they are being unable to engage you???

Yep.  The only thing they can do is avoid the questions at hand and spend lots of energy doing so.

And the reason they ignore you is because to people who really want to learn the truth, you are only a nobody and someone easy to ignore.

They don't ignore me.  They spend all of their time trying to avoid addressing the point in question.  Profitis did it for something like a year.

It is not that you have any more knowledge than anyone here

In the threads I'm participating in, in the subjects I'm addressing then I certainly appear to.

or that you can "prove " something.

Depends on what you mean by "prove" and it depends on if you will engage the issue.  If you won't obviously I can't advance an argument against a position that is undisclosed. 

[sarkeizen]

Hey don't include me in that list I used modern school textbooks against you and you did not force me

Dude.  You agreed to provide a FORMAL argument and you spent a year lying and avoiding the question.  If you provided a formal argument then please point out where it is and how all the steps logically FORCE the conclusion.  In the end you even lied about the textbook you claimed were quoting from.   I have the exact book and edition sitting on my shelf today.  I think of it as a trophy.

Any time you want to step back into that ring I'd be happy to put your lights out. but of course you would have to show a formal argument and if you couldn't do that in a year....well...I'm not optimistic.

[profitis]

Sarkeizen:'provide a FORMAL argument'

I gave you the formula but you ignored it right through the argument for some unknown reason E=RT/nF ln k1/k2.k= equilibrium forward or backward rate constants of different catalysts at both electrodes for O2+2H2O +2e-><4OH-.you failed to explain why these different catalyst constants should change during both backward and forward reactions and you failed to give reason for thermodynamic irreversability in this classic textbook concentration cell when you should be easily able to do so.demonstration replicability ruled out all of your counter-argument in any case,there was no need for words,just action.in short: I showed you why a scientific constant remains constant at 25 deg C but you didn't show us why a constant should change at 25 deg C.

[sarkeizen]

Sarkeizen:'provide a FORMAL argument'

I gave you the formula

Which is not a formal argument.  You lose.  When you can bring a formal argument you will win.

But that will be never because you're a moron.

[profitis]

Sarkeizen:'But that will be never because you're a moron. '

A constant remains a constant at 25 deg C until you show us scientists why this is not so