quentron.com

[lumen]

Don't bother profitis, sarky is only here to win arguments. He cares nothing about any facts
.
He believes the theories that he read about, as fact, and any facts he reads that dispute the theories (of his heros)... well, must be wrong!
A bit strange, but whatever!

[profitis]

well lumen,if he,s going to dispute the laws of electrochemistry then yes,it is hopeless to argue with him.i cant argue with someone who,s going to change the laws of physics to suit them.

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen what is observed is a common electrode concentration cell man.

Really?  Isn't this a piece of equipment that nobody has disassembled and barely anyone has seen?  How are you "observing" this? Please confine yourself to stating things actually observed, readings taken, etc...  Not things you want to imagine they mean.  From there you need to make an argument that NECESSITATES your conclusions from the data observed.

So far, all you're doing is begging the question.

dispute the laws of electrochemistry

Can you point to a place where I explicitly question some well-defined law of electrochemistry?  Nope.  Now you may *imagine* that I'm implicitly doing so but that's again the problem with your argument.

Again, separate what is actually observed as opposed to what you prefer to imagine is going on.

Don't bother profitis, sarky is only here to win arguments.

Considering how many arguments I've had with you, and as you say I win them...aren't you admitting that you've lost them?

He believes the theories that he read about, as fact, and any facts he reads that dispute the theories (of his heros)... well, must be wrong!

Close but not quite.   A theory is a pretty broad term, by contrast a theorem in math is something that is proven.  I have no idea what you mean by "fact" (you seem to have used the term in two contradictory ways in your post). But I recognize that a proof is a formal logical consequence of it's assumptions.  To think otherwise is no different than believing there exists an integer which satisfies. 4x + 5 = 0.  It doesn't matter how many people believe, report or say such a thing exists.  It simply can not without violating logic.  Hence if you want to believe in your pet theory, you have to give up all of logic (or all certainty of logic and math).

Which of course makes the price of believing in whatever you really want to believe in, the ability to be able to rationally believe in anything else.  In other words, the price of being irrational is your rationality.

[profitis]

@sarkeizen no need to observe.its written and predicted in  textbooks under section 'electrode concentration cells' .again,do you want to question the credibility of all and every textbook on electrochemistry?what is your complaint exactly because you are quite vague on this textbook issue.please dont digress now and stay focused .you are questioning the laws of physics as you are implying that the karpen concentration cell is not compliant with textbook rules under subsection 'electrode concentration cells' so you either agree with these rules or disagree with these rules,which is it?

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen no need to observe

The argument that Lumen put forth is that this thing that is sitting in an office in a museum IS constantly violating 2LOT and has been for 60 years - if you strain your eyes just slightly you can see where he actually says this.  You are saying that I don't have to look at it to determine that it is doing so.  I don't need any data, any observations?  Your view of science seems very different than mine.

what is your complaint exactly because you are quite vague on this textbook issue.

I'm not being vague as much as I don't acknowledge that it's relevant. It's not the thing being discussed.  Either the real object in question is violating 2LOT or it is not.  You appear to be saying that I can validate that a particular object is violating 2LOT without observing it.  That seems pretty weird (and a little shifty as even you have claimed that *something* was observed but you're were vague as to what and now you seem to agree that it's hard to observe this specific object but that I don't need to or something).

please dont digress now

ROFL. I'm trying to stem your digression.