Free Energy
in [Physics]
|
From: Scott Nudds on 25 Feb 2006 20:19 "Bill Ward" wrote > I meant where did the multiverse come from. The concept > just pushes the original question back one notch. That's right. But the multiverse could itself be infinite and everlasting. It's just another way to get an infinite universe. Don't give it much thought. It's unworthy. "Bill Ward" wrote > How would one do the comparison? By simple backward extrapolation, assuming that the current second and meter are the standards by which past and future change in those metrics are measured. > >> And what does the "rate of flow of time" mean? Compared to > >> what? Some sort of absolute or meta-time? > > > > Compared to a watch that you have now. "Bill Ward" wrote > Again, how would one do the comparison? By noting how c changes relative to current values of c, over time. "Bill Ward" wrote > Wouldn't an observer be keeping the same time as the watch? It should > appear normal (well, a bit more dense). Yes, in that normal time, the universe could be an infinite age, but relative to our time, it would have an origin. Infinite or finite (origin or no origin) are just a matter of viewpoint.
From: Tom on 25 Feb 2006 22:09 "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:S37Mf.1123$d9.503(a)read2.cgocable.net... > > A silly brain fart on my part. Heh.
From: Tom on 25 Feb 2006 22:10 "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:h77Mf.1124$d9.985(a)read2.cgocable.net... > > "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote >> What you borrow has to be given back. So it's not free. You said free. >> You didn't say borrowed. > > When do the Republicans plan to pay back the 8.2 trillion they have > borrowed in their effort to impoverish the AmeriKKKan people? You pay it back. You're the one with all the free energy.
From: Tom on 25 Feb 2006 22:13 "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:jh7Mf.1127$d9.683(a)read2.cgocable.net... > > "Bill Ward" wrote >> I meant where did the multiverse come from. The concept >> just pushes the original question back one notch. > > That's right. But the multiverse could itself be infinite and > everlasting. It's just another way to get an infinite universe. So you think it *is* turtles all the way down.
From: Archangel on 26 Feb 2006 09:06
"Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:4400a9bf.3160577(a)localhost... > On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:51:49 GMT, "Archangel" > <Archangel(a)nulldev.com> wrote: > >> >>"Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message >>news:44000af6.43954547(a)localhost... > > <snip prior posts> > >>> Looking backward, at some point it seems to me there will >>> always be an unanswerable question, where science must end >>> and faith begin. Right now the unanswerable question seems >>> to be, "Why are we here?" >> >> >>well most of us with an IQ of more than 100 are here to laugh at Tom. >> >>A >> > Whatever keeps your mind occupied. He doesn't seem very > concerned about it. True. Where there is no sense there is no feeling. Perhaps he doesn't realise he is being ridiculed. I am cursed with great subtlety. A |