quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen we are still waiting for you to show that textbooks dont necessitate perpetual batteries

ROFL.  I don't see why you would be waiting for that.   As I've never stated that I'm arguing that.  I've made it pretty clear that my position is that you can't support your point (or can't support it with evidence equivalent to your confidence) and so far, I'm right.

You on the other hand have repeatedly stated that "textbooks *do* necessitate the existence of and the ability to create a battery which will run an ipod like device eternally and continually" and we all know why you can't argue that point...because it's likely wrong.   

I've clearly explained the criteria required to make your own point and all you can manage is sillly evasions.

[profitis]

lol @ sarkeizen..i cant support common concentration cells and their expected behaviour?.check how mark E declared that a wikipedian o2 concentration cell potential doesnt exist because of 'communion'then ran away when i told him to un-communion the thing.and check how you personaly wont even address the existance of the wikipedia phenomena.disgusting,but hey,i get the last laugh.what? You ask why? Because replicability trumps everything at the end of the day

[sarkeizen]

lol @ sarkeizen..i cant support common concentration cells and their expected behaviour?

Yawn. You are trying (unsuccessfully) to change terms, this particular kind of duplicity is one of your three go-to techniques (the others being "build it" and "prove this other independent thing" both of which are pretty much appeals to ignorance - there's also a helping of ad hominem and poisoning the well).   Again I'd ask if people you know and argue with think you are intelligent.  If so, I'd get new friends.

So to the actual point.  You don't appear capable of supporting the statement which you made and agreed with several times.  Which was that "Textbooks necessitate the existence of and the ability to build a battery which will power an ipod like device eternally and continually".

And the likely reason is that you're wrong about this and the reason you're so evasive is likely because you know you're wrong and what you are spending most of your time doing is hoping you can engage me in a different argument.  Because you've clearly lost this one.

If I was talking to a smarter person, they would probably just say: "Ok, you're right but what if...." and start a different point but you can't.

Because replicability trumps everything at the end of the day

Yawn, well you really want to believe that even when it's been explained to you how replication can easily be wrong.  But hey, you have my permission to make yourself as stupid as you like.  That's your right as a human being.  I'm just trying to help you out.  Also I don't get to argue with people who are deliberately lying to me very often so it's interesting practice.

[profitis]

@sarkeizen.nope in a most perverse twist of fate the 'superscientist' mark E has made it ten times easier for me to prove to you and the audience how a wikipedia concentration cell will power your ipod forever.superscientist mark E has acknowledged 1)the existence of a wikipedia platinum equal pressure oxygen gas concentration cell.2)that the wikipedia cell can do work and 3) mr E has imagined that the wikipedia cell has zero resting potential. Ive got you by the balls now @sarkeizen because i just have to prove to you and the audience how mark E was wrong on point 3 because superscientist mark E even agreed,that if number 3 is wrong,that its a kelvin breach already.

[sarkeizen]

has made it ten times easier for me to prove to you and the audience how...

...ordinary textbooks necessitate the existence of and the ability to build a battery which will power an ipod like device eternally and continually?  That is what we're talking about because you requested it.

If so, then you should be able to produce a formal argument stemming from an ordinary textbook cite.

Go ahead...I'm waiting.