I think I understand now.  In your viewpoint, an actual experimental result
which challenges that stance would be something you'd call "not good".


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You don't need new physics to explain cold fusion. Nor violate any
> statistical physics. You just need to look for ignored solution in
> the literature.
>
>
> 2013/6/3 Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Reply via email to