You just processed the Second Amendment, right there in your post.
The substance of the law tells us that energy can neither be destroyed nor created. It doesn’t say that energy can neither be destroyed nor created, and that this has always been true infinitely into the past.
Here’s the most important point of my discussion with you: whether or not the law has always been true is a question that is separate from the substance of the law.
"You just processed the Second Amendment, right there in your post."
I read it and take the plain English meaning of the words. I did not "process it" as in an application of some: "logic with which the law is processed.", as you claim in 1605. You're applying the logic to the conservation of energy law, concluding that it is invalid as stated and applying the ocndiitonal, which acts as a constraint to regions of space where it's validity holds AND insisting that it's very nature changes according to it's own nature!
Any amount of energy can be represented by a characteristic inverse time quantity. That representational equivalence is a result of the underlying essences of what energy and time are. It's represented by the statement; A=A. One can not write A≠A at some arbitrary interval of time, which is what you are attempting to do. It's the same as claiming the Second Amendment does not mean what it says, because times have changed and we are now in a new time interval.