![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> IOW, zero-point energy and the gravity gun don't actually have much
> relationship.
Of course they do. The proper name for the gravity gun is, after all,
zero-point energy field manipulator.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> IOW, zero-point energy and the gravity gun don't actually have much
>> relationship.
>
> Of course they do. The proper name for the gravity gun is, after all,
> zero-point energy field manipulator.
...you realise that the gravity gun is a work of fiction though, yes? ;-)
The fact that it has a particular physics term in the name doesn't
necessarily mean that the real-world physics concept by that name is in
any way related...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> But since it doesn't obey conservation laws, you take the energy out and
> yet it's still there. That's kind of the point.
Indeed, one may even go so far as to say the fact that the minimum isn't
zero is what *makes* the conservation laws fail.
I have three quarks. I give you one of them. How many do I have? How
many do you have? ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |