Umm you know it strikes me that another word for conserved is 'Pickled' is that the case ummm Pat?
On 19 Aug, 14:32, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Did Harrington exist while he was away? Perhaps he was just > conserved, which is how energy is viewed in science rather than being > created or destroyed? Energy, of course, seems to be in rather large > 'presence' where we statistically detect and average of zero. Welcome > back Pat. So who is pulling your strings mate? > > On 19 Aug, 12:50, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Umm interesting. What happens then to the energy that is sapped by > > friction? > > > On 18 Aug, 18:27, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Aug 18, 5:07 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > What prevents the understanding is a common platform/language in which > > > > to discuss the issues. For example: Science has no problem with the > > > > concept that energy is neither created nor destroyed; > > > > Actually, Justin pointed out that this is not actually the case. He > > > claims there are respected physicists that claim that conservation of > > > energy is not true in the universe as a whole. It only applies to > > > closed systems. I liked that concept too! And you are using the > > > energy thing! I like it, but Justin does not. He has good points. > > > Could there be an error in the calculations? I think it might be > > > possible. It is a big universe out there. Adding up all the energy? > > > Way beyond me.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
