quentron.com

[MarkE]

Sarkeizen:'Again this is perhaps a difference between academia and where you live...let's call it "loserville" ok?  See here, if I write a paper I have to actually KNOW what I'm talking about.  I need to express my ideas clearly and make arguments that are very compelling (to non-loserville people).  I can't just say "The flrogslishever computer-spillover hydro-valve means P=NP".  Which seems like something you could pass off in loserville. '

Sorry I'm an electrochemist not a computition.so far you gave us no reason why phillip's device should not be able to sort hot from cold wheras I've given a good few reasons why it should

LOL, if you think that anything you have proposed supports PJH's claims then you are a very badly deluded individual. 

[lumen]

The only real problem with a theorem is that because it does constitute absolute mathematical proof, it tends to prevent progress when used as such a proof.
In the scope of the theorem it will always be correct and can define a limit but the theorem cannot define the scope so the actual limit may not exist.

Example: Fusion requires a minimum energy level to occur, but yet we have cold fusion.

[MarkE]

The only real problem with a theorem is that because it does constitute absolute mathematical proof, it tends to prevent progress when used as such a proof.
In the scope of the theorem it will always be correct and can define a limit but the theorem cannot define the scope so the actual limit may not exist.

Example: Fusion requires a minimum energy level to occur, but yet we have cold fusion.

Theorems are like anything else in mathematics:  They can be misapplied and then what one gets is GIGO.   There have always been a subset of engineering students who do really well in math but have great difficulty applying the correct math when solving an engineering problem.

Your example is not very good because cold fusion is an unproven claim.

[sarkeizen]

Example: Fusion requires a minimum energy level to occur

This isn't really an example of what we are talking about here.  I'd suggest you read Popper's "logic of scientific discovery".  Models have an inductive problem.  If you observe some series of events that occurs at a rate of y=x^2 for n observations.  How many observations are required before you can assume the relationship holds for all possible values of X?

Proofs have assumptions, but they don't have the same inductive problem. 

, but yet we have cold fusion.

Not really.

[profitis]

Mark E'LOL, if you think that anything you have proposed
supports PJH's claims then you are a very badly
deluded individual.'

Well let's think about this indepth mr E.I take two different metals and shove them in contact under vaccuum.naturaly we get a irreversable evening out of charge after seperation.now we do the same cycle but with a grid infront of one piece.the question boils down to this: how would the grid affect the whole equilibria statisticly.bear inmind that electrons behave as particles and waves