Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> 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

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> 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

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