David VanHorn <microbrix <at> gmail.com> writes:
 
> > I say it or imply it (actually net *energy* positive  ) every time
> > I mention Lunar Helium 3 .
> > Even though (as you note) its actually star ash and so energy negative
> > overall as well   .
> 
> Everything is energy negative overall, except possibly the big bang,
> and that does seem to be an interesting observation.

Using common sense one would ask, *which* one of the big bangs do you have in 
mind, and even then it would likely be 'net energy negative' if one would 
consider the entire control 'volume' (before, during and after whatever is 
decided to be the 'event'). And *then* the same common sense would cause one to 
ask where the 'missing' part of *that* went. Because common sense says that there
should be a 'missing' part in every 'event'. But the same common sense seems to 
say that the most likely explanation for the 'missing' part is the inability of 
the observer to perceive it other than as 'missing', or as 'not net negative'. 
And these two seem to be facets of the same thing.

Peter P.


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist