Sayonara

The quoted post is a non sequitur and has nothing to do with my question or the point that followed. Try again.

I don't have an argument with conservation being upheld in the multiverse (as long as the damned thing is closed overall ), what I have been trying to ask is should we consider energy destroyed or created if it leaves or enters the system? I don't see how you can take the observer out of that really.

Get a renewable-fuelled one. Otherwise if you ever have children I'm going to tell them how you knowingly participated in destroying their world so that you could look cool. Then you'll be sorry you didn't get that chip shop conversion

Stop trolling other members, now. You can consider this an official warning.

I think we have established now that Encrypted is not in big trouble and does not need help.

I did not say "they wouldn't hold", I said that I did not see why they would apply, hence the working through that we have been doing. If we start by considering the energy x in universe A, we can't very well arbitrarily include another distinct universe and its own energy as part of our system because we are effectively creating energy that was not part of our original system. What I am saying is that from the point of view of A, if A is no longer connected to B, energy that ends up in B should be considered destroyed, and energy that arrives in A should be considered created. If A and B are still connected then obviously they are one system (although they may be part of an open, infinitely repeating system as I mentioned earlier, which is a problem). But if they start and end in isolation, then one has effectively lost energy and one has gained it. An observer in either universe is not going to be able to distinguish destroyed/created energy from energy that has just been "reshuffled". "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another, which includes being mislaid in other universes".

That's not a terribly good answer, given that there are plenty of extremely notable people who are famous for having written of or discussed things before they were built/invented/proven.

But... why?

Yeah, I'd like to read about that too. OK, imagine at time 0 we have two distinct universes, A and B. These are both closed systems, each with a specific allocation of energy which we will call x. At time 10 a wormhole opens between A and B, and our closed systems are now open (or closed but larger, if you assume that neither have any other exits. whichever) so that y energy can travel through the wormhole into the B universe. At time 20 the wormhole closes, isolating universes A and B. Universe A now has x-y energy, and universe B has x+y. From the point of view of either universe energy has been lost or gained respectively. The question is, do we consider this to be destruction/creation of energy insofar as it concerns one or the other universe?

I understand what you mean. I suggested you change "has" for "can have" as the former implies that logic is always present' date=' whereas this is not true. You're the one with the problems here. Sort yourself out.

Perhaps you could play catch-up and read the entire discussion' date=' instead of just stopping on the first thing you don't understand. What? The laws of physics are a good, consistent description of the way things are in this universe. There is no reason whatsoever to believe they would invariably apply in a different universe. NO REASON. NONE AT ALL.

Does anyone use the Web Developer Toolbar extension? It rawks.

Seeing as "ecuation" is not an English word it's perhaps not surprising that I assumed you made a typo.

"Sports car" LuTze?

Not all of them, no. Especially not the ones that are colliding.

This might be more useful:

Evolution is something of a special case, as it is not a single subject. "The theory of evolution" is a derivative of "evolutionary theory", which is the preferred term.

If I am using the nickname "Dave" in the channel, and you come online, you won't be able to identify as Dave even if you have regged it - which means you won't be +O in the channel. What's the workaround for that?

I've just come back to this thread and I have to say it's quite disturbing.

Well, frames are deprecated and ought to be avoided wherever possible, but this tutorial does the job: http://wp.netscape.com/assist/net_sites/frames.html

So when I said "I'm not sure if yourdad meant to say that the circumference was actually affected, or if it just appears that way to someone in a different relatavistic frame" way back in post #20, you ignored it because...? The changing view of the circle to an outside observer is not the same as the circle's geometry actually changing.

Wow, they've really caught up! Next you'll be telling me that IE has sorted out its DOM and adheres to W3 standards.

That's pushing the individually-available envelope a bit.

'cept those.

If you're using it as a pretty text editor you shouldn't be surprised that it's all fine and dandy.