Harry Veeder wrote: > Paul, > > > I think what you are alluding to is more correctly called "power" > rather than "energy". Indeed, "power" can be defined without the > concept of "energy".
Hi Harry, The discussion was regarding PE. So I was referring to energy. Harry Veeder wrote: > That begs the question how much PE does the universe have? > > Harry > > Michel Jullian wrote: > >> I didn't understand your reply, would the elementary particle (any particle, >> e.g. a neutron, a quark) lose something while falling towards a planet? >> >> BTW, I wonder if PE shouldn't be viewed as a property of the universe rather >> than of an object. Well that depends who you ask. Some believe such PE is unknown. IMHO there's no such thing as PE. I consider B & E fields energy. Michel Jullian wrote: > P.S. Again, kindly keep your reply short, and put it on > top or near the top (blind people friendly convention, they read > the posts by text to speech software and don't want to hear all the > old stuff they already know about Good idea. Regards, Paul ____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
