I wish Abd was here. Would you like to carry this conversation to his nVo?

2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>

> 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 <danieldi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I don't understand what you mean...
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>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 <kevmol...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>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
>>>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Reply via email to