1. Our lives would be different without energy.
2. Our lives would be different if we didn't have energy.
3. Our lives would be different if there were no energy.
----------------------------
Does #1 mean #2 and #3? Are they the same in meaning and grammatical?
Yes, all three sentences convey the same meaning and are grammatically correct. They express the idea that our lives would be different if there were no energy. However, there are subtle differences in the phrasing and emphasis used in each sentence.
Sentence #1: "Our lives would be different without energy."
In this sentence, the word "without" implies that our lives would be different in the absence of energy. It emphasizes the notion of lacking or being deprived of energy.
Sentence #2: "Our lives would be different if we didn't have energy."
This sentence uses the phrase "if we didn't have" to convey the idea that our lives would be different if we were unable to possess or access energy. It emphasizes the hypothetical scenario of not having energy.
Sentence #3: "Our lives would be different if there were no energy."
In this sentence, the phrase "if there were no" suggests the hypothetical situation where energy does not exist at all. It highlights the absence of energy as the main factor that would contribute to a different way of life.
While all three sentences express the same basic idea, the choice of phrasing and emphasis can slightly alter the tone and focus of the statement.