Rock Port, Missouri - The First 100% Wind Powered City

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Excellent. Find experts in the field of power and energy and quote precisely the contrary view that they expressed.

As I said, energy can be instantaneous just as much as power or just as little as power and you don't need to be an expert to appreciate that. If you can't understand that, then you probably can't be helped. Other than your own opinion, your statements have no support, nor can they be substantiated in any way, because they wont be viewed as correct until proven otherwise and you have not proven the case Far from it in fact. I suspect it's unlikely you will prove the case when your argument is flawed, but good marks for trying to prove something that can't be proven. As I said before, and getting back on topic to the core issue raised, the intended meaning of the articles is quite clear and appropriately conveyed.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

As I said, energy can be instantaneous just as much as power or just as little as power and you don't need to be an expert to appreciate that.

Energy can't be instantaneous.
Energy = Power x time.
You don't need to be an expert in the field to understand that zero time thus means zero energy. It's as simple as that. All you need is common sense. As you say, if you can't understand that, then you probably can't be helped.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Other than your own opinion, your statements have no support, nor can they be substantiated in any way,

That Energy = Power x time supports and substantiates the fact that energy cannot be instantaneous. That is neither an expression of my opinion nor support for it. It is just simple physics.
I again invite you to find a professional in the field who can show the physics to be well, fallacious as you expressed it.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

[/size][/font]
Energy can't be instantaneous.
Energy = Power x time.
You don't need to be an expert in the field to understand that zero time thus means zero energy. It's as simple as that. All you need is common sense. As you say, if you can't understand that, then you probably can't be helped.

That Energy = Power x time supports and substantiates the fact that energy cannot be instantaneous. That is neither an expression of my opinion nor support for it. It is just simple physics.
I again invite you to find a professional in the field who can show the physics to be well, fallacious as you expressed it.

That simple formula doesn't prove the case to anyone other than yourself and you probably cant be helped prove it, when it's not provable. You dont need to be an expert to appreciate that. I invite you to find professionals and experts opinions beyond your own to prove your case. One opinion does not give sufficient substantive weight to your claims. You have failed to substantively prove your case.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

That simple formula doesn't prove the case .

OK.....
Find me a case where the formula is violated.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

OK.....
Find me a case where the formula is violated.

The whole concept of instantaneous lies beyond that single formula as previously mentioned and its just inappropriate to use that formula to prove the concept.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

The whole concept of instantaneous lies beyond that single formula as previously mentioned and its just inappropriate to use that formula to prove the concept.

OK....
So, can we agree that you can't cite a case wher the formula is violated?
That's just yes or no.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

OK....
So, can we agree that you can't cite a case wher the formula is violated?
That's just yes or no.

The formula does not prove the case. Violation or otherwise of the formula, does not prove or disprove the case. The notion of instantaneous, lies beyond the formula and is not pivotal to this formula.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

The formula does not prove the case. Violation or otherwise of the formula, does not prove or disprove the case. The notion of instantaneous, lies beyond the formula and is not pivotal to this formula.

Since you have not cited a single case of violation can can we agree that you can't cite a case where the formula is violated?
That's just yes or no. Be succinct and direct. Then we can move on.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Since you have not cited a single case of violation can can we agree that you can't cite a case where the formula is violated?
That's just yes or no. Be succinct and direct. Then we can move on.

The violation or otherwise is irrelevant, so we can move on.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

The violation or otherwise is irrelevant, so we can move on.

Thank f*** for that,all ahead full,left hand down a bit Mr.Mate,splice the mainbrace and its Wobs turn in the barrel.