> >> Isn't this all about sound science, and that it won't 
> change "anytime 
> >> soon"? :)
> > 
> > Science need evidence, so where is it?
> 
> That was exactly my question, for your supposedly scientific 
> statement about the probability of something being found 
> tomorrow that you don't consider today. It wasn't me who 
> claimed something, it was you, and I asked you to back this 
> claim up /scientifically/. Which you didn't, and this post 
> continues not to back it up scientifically.
> 
> My point was that with this statement you left the scientific 
> realm. So far, all everybody (mainly you and Russell) has 
> said in that respect is that it seems, using ones gut, that 


Ok, let's recap.  More tedium.  I said the laws of thermodymanics are
unlikely to be broken anytime soon.

I saw your response to that and couldn't decide whether you agreed with me
or not.  I read this current response and have come away no wiser.

I'm not sure how to scientifically defend a statement which is, in essence,
simply saying "NO, but a very tiny maybe".  What the 'maybe' is, I've no
idea.  Neither does anyone else (unless you consider the zero-point
techno-babble energy nutters).

Tony

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist