Posted: Sep 26, 2011 5:31 am
mizvekov wrote:cavarka9 wrote:Actually I do not remember reading your debate,,where exactly?.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 21224.html
You participated there, so I assumed you were talking about that, sorry about that.cavarka9 wrote:There was recently I think a thread was posted which asked about conservation of energy, and I read it earlier from sciam anyway also, the universe is expanding, but no, I cant formulate it.
I thought that you were talking about the article by Sean Carroll, which was posted on that thread by another member.
I remember that I got sean carroll's article from here and I remember thanking for that, dont know where. I only read that bit as that was interesting wrt to the other thread I was reading at the time. It's ok, just point to the thread next time.
So, could anyone help wrt to conservation of energy not being true and its implication to particle nature.Particles should be conserved, I cannot imagine particles not being conserved, and hence if energy is not conserved then it may not be particles which best represent it. Although it could be wrong, if so I would like to know the reason.