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] >
