quentron.com

[profitis]

There it is @sarkeizen..a few of my posts back..the one about atomic hydrogen. You have to show that its false.if u can't show that this is false straightout then how the hell are u going to show that its false if cited?

[MarkE]

Incorrect @mark E.I have not destroyed my own argument(not claim) over contact potentials.infact,you've destroyed your defense.phil and I predicted that you would fallback onto the switch issue as a last desperate line of defence,gues what,you did (-:

LOL.  See if you can find anyone to agree with you concerning your argument.  Maybe you wish to invoke a unique interpretation of thermodynamically reversible.

[MarkE]

@mark E. Mr sarkeizen has to do the work to disprove me now because I used HIS bible against him.he has to point out formaly scientificaly where my argument falls short.he has to attack me directly on the issue of cyclic spillover.if he fails to do this then he cannot present a solid defence case on which to stand.

If you really believe that, then you do not understand proofs.

[sarkeizen]

There it is @sarkeizen..a few of my posts back

I see nothing that qualifies as a formal argument.  Can you demonstrate that it's a formal argument?  (Hint:  If you can't it's not a formal argument).   Again you should stop lying.  When someone asks you for something, it is lying to claim that you've done it and you haven't.

its false if cited?

You need a cite for any formal argument to be true.  It might be different if say I was a field expert but I'm not. 

[profitis]

@phill hardcastle I think it is now time for you to drop the bomb on contact potentials.it seems mark E has run full circle to his switch and has nothing further to offer.