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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >> 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 <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> 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] >>> >> >> > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > [email protected] >
