No thanks. Why don't you just answer the question? It is pretty straightforward.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
