quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

1)The first pile sparked debate many many years ago.it continues today,unresolved.
2)the other piles have been brought to the threads attention many many months ago,the same problem,unresolved.
3)the anti2lot hypothesis about the unresolvedness remains unresolved.
4)the piles exist.
5) the whole class of piles exist and are still coming into existance.
6)there is not a single unusual thing in the first half of the hypothesis,only the 2nd half declaring a 2lot violation.

So according to you:

1) Anything at all which people debated a long time ago and people debate today means the premise is highly likely to be true.
2) Anything at all which people talk about on this thread but have not definitively disproved in this thread is highly likely to be true.
3) Anything at all which challenges some law of science is highly likely to be true.
4) Anything at all which someone claims has been built and claims to operate in some way absolutely validates any and all claims about their operation.
5) Is just another case of 4)
6) Anything at all involving a hypothesis where some part is not unusual is highly likely to be true.

Is this correct?

[profitis]

No sarkeizen: 1)any simple battery in existance which people debated a long time ago and still debate today means usuality won't do and unusual more likely true.2)anything related to number 1 which was discussed on this thread many months ago but was not number 1 but created the same political vaccuum as number 1 means unusual more likely true.3)anything which sensibly challenges an already challenged law to fill the political vaccuum created by 1 and 2 is more likely to be likely.4)anything related to and including number 1 that someone has built and claims to fill the political void of number 1 more than likely should be listened to.5)is just another 4.6) anything which has a half usual hypothesis to fill the unusual political vaccuum created by number 1 is likely to be unusualy usual,ie.a match for number 1 and its effect.   This is correct.

[sarkeizen]

any simple battery in existance

In what sense are you using the term "exist"?  Do you mean a) It has been built and works in exactly the way profitis in his illucid imagination believe it does or b) someone somewhere built something and claims that it works in some particular way?

means usuality won't do and unusual more likely true

Please re-write this part in English. 

[profitis]

I mean a piece of gold and a piece of plat shoved into electrolyte in presence of air and sealed off.this created a political vaccuum extending 70years and going on today.means there is no usual explanation.an unusual one necessary mr sarkeizen.

[sarkeizen]

I mean a piece of gold and a piece of plat shoved into electrolyte in presence of air and sealed off.

So if something like that had been built but nobody who was debating it knew that. Your principle "If it exists and people have been debating it for a long time makes it highly-likely to be true." would still be true.  Right?