I wish Abd was here. Would you like to carry this conversation to his nVo?
2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> > Then let's get back to your original statement: "That's not good. It > violates the 2nd law of thermo." How is that not good? That's like > watching a rock hovering in the sky saying, "that violates the law of > gravity". There's nothing good nor bad about it. It's simply an > experimental result. > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Daniel Rocha <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I don't understand what you mean... >> >> >> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> There are theories that avoid the violation of the 2nd law. >>>> >>> ***Then as long as those theories can explain this experimental result, >>> everything is in good shape. Why would you say "That's not good"? >>> >>> This is an experimental finding, not a theory. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> That's not good. It violates the 2nd law of thermo. >>>>>> >>>>> ***It is an experimental finding. Like Feynman says, experiment >>>>> trumps theory. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Rocha - RJ >> [email protected] >> > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
