XPost: rec.arts.sf.movies, alt.tv.star-trek.tos, rec.arts.sf.written
XPost: alt.tv.sevendays
From: dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com
William December Starr wrote:
>Howard Brazee said:
>> It must have taken a lot of energy to create a second universe.
>
>So what?
>
>Seriously, so what? Just because there's a conservation of
>mass-energy rule in effect _within_ this universe, and presumably
>also within ones that are very close analogues of it, that
>doesn't mean that there have to be any such thing in effect in
>the whatever-it-is in which those universes co-exist and in which
>new ones ocassionally boing into existence.
And remember you've also got to multiply the total mass-energy content of the
universe by its probability coefficient.
Dave "and if you've missed a negative sign, and the total mass-energy content
of the universe is actually ZERO, then there's not even that to bother with"
DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the
flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to
see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET
VRbeable
|
