Why would you do any of that? For your own entertainment?
My problem with the OP is that I can perceive of no purpose for an existent omni god.

So you would wonder, be in awe of yourself, pursue your own mysterious existence, seek out a philosophy, question your own motives and rational for as long as you existed? Whatever form you take? — Benj96

Probably not as I would have nothing to compare myself to, so how could I experience awe?
How would I know what I was? Who or what would tell me? Would I just know who and what I was?
What do you think my purpose would be? Are you positing this god after it has created something inferior to itself? Why would it have a need to do that?

I would spend eternity musing about how absurd my existence was and trying to see if I can see myself.
I would wonder why I existed and what god like creature created me.
I would also wonder why I didn't have the answers to those questions.
I would then wonder who was I talking to or 'thinking' to? What 'I' meant and why was I thinking in English?

I like this analogy a lot. Seems very intuitively logical and reasonable. My mind is chewing on it. Food for thought. — Benj96

:up: Quantum entanglement seems to be a way for information to appear at more than one place at the same instant in time, regardless of the distance between the two points. This does not mean we can therefore find a way to 'send' or 'transmit' information instantly. It suggests to me, that certain information was always there, and certain events allow certain forms of information to appear.
All electrons are identical. Wheeler and Feynman even introduced the idea of a single electron universe with a positron simply being that single electron moving backwards in time. It was discarded mainly because there seems to be many more electrons than positrons, but superposition may be two separated but connected, identical excitations with identical information, that appear to be/are the same object.

Clearly a photon does not have a perspective, just trying to get the point across that to a photon there is no such thing as time. — staticphoton

In QFT, the universe contains 'interacting' fields. Every field permeates the entire universe, yes?
So does a 'photon'/field excitation really 'travel' at all?
Like a water wave or a mexican wave in a crowd of people. Each person just undulates in sequence order. Each person just stands up and sits down at the correct time. This gives the appearance of a moving wave. If a photon can appear at any point in space or time then perhaps it does not have to travel as it is already there and has been there since the big bang singularity. The speed of light would then be an observed constant of propagation through a universal field, but the 'photon' can arrive at any point in the universe instantly as a 'photon' has always existed at every point in the universe.

This is completely irrelevant. The formula they used is clearly stated as mgh (mass time gravitational constant times height), which is the formula for gravitational potential energy. All that energy lost in the first second and a half of time must be lost in the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy, in the falling of the glider. — Metaphysician Undercover

No because the 0.1 joules of energy was not lost, it was converted to other energy types.

Then, after the first collision, this significant energy loss (at least ten percent in the first 1.5 seconds of the experiment) which has been demonstrated to be occurring in the free movement of the glider is completely dismissed, and ignored in the later part of the experiment. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, the total energy of the system after the first collision is shown and the error bar in measurement is shown in the small curved broken line. Again, no energy is lost, a tiny amount is converted to other forms. Total energy is conserved.

Do we agree with this reading of the graph? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, 0.9 and 1 are your guesstimates and are not confirmed. There is some error present in the measurements due to the nature of the universe and the measuring tools we have but the overwhelming evidence from the experiment is that the TOTAL energy of the system is conserved.

That's a very strange conclusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's called science! There is no woo woo here, despite your refusal to reveal what becomes of this non-existent occult(hidden) energy you insist this experiment exemplifies.

Do you think this universal mind is self-aware and has intent?
Why did it need to break parts of itself off to create something limited as you or I?
Sentients who do not know that our origin is a universal mind and was not given any coherent instruction when we were born as to what our purpose is while we are here, other than the info we are given from or the experiences we have, with other humans.
You can be terminated through, what seems to be a meaningless random happenstance. Why? If we come from something as omnipresent as a universal mind.
Why did it create gradations of intelligence and sentience?
Did it make the dinosaurs? if so, why?
Why did it need two human parents to create you? Or were they and your birth just simulated?
Do you believe that the universe terminates after you die?
Time/change had no meaning to you before you were born and wont after you die, so from your reference frame the universe ends when you die. Yet that reference frame has limited meaning for anyone who is still alive after you die.
Solipsism is nonsense and there is no currently existing universal mind imo. Maybe many millions of years from now, all intelligent life in the universe can 'network' or act as a universal collective which may be something akin to a universal mind. So, that's the only posit I would twitch an eyebrow towards, an emergent, universal, collective intellect, which can also act as individuals.

I felt disappointed and said so. But perhaps I was wrong. — Amity

Sometimes we can overanalyse ourselves and think we are becoming too irrational there or too addictive here. Employment of caution and self-analysis, is always wise, but so is allowing you to be you, without any compulsion to self-deprecate (which can also become addictive). Getting that balance perfect everytime is unattainable, so I continue to try not to destroy myself too much when I fail to live up to my own judgements.

Words associated with the word Amity:
amicableness, benevolence, comity, concord, cordiality, friendliness, goodwill, harmony, kindliness, neighborliness, togetherness, simpatico.

I don't think it would be incorrect to include 'hope' or 'hopefulness,' in the above list of associated labels.

As much as I think highly of hope, I think you grant it too much power. — Amity

No, if anything, I think I have underestimated its importance. Hope is the fundamental, that comes before love, joy etc. Your use of the word 'grant' brought this into my head from Eddie Grant:


Gimme hope Joanna! (Johannesburg)

How do you even begin to measure it? — Amity

Historical and contemporary exemplification from those who express it, in speech, writing or/and in their creative works and positive actions. This also includes those who express hope despite having gone through terrible trauma. Folks like Doddie Weir, who just died of motor neuron disease, demonstrated nothing but hope towards the defeat of that horrible disease in the future. As do those in the public eye who will continue that hope in his name. A hope filled legacy. There are so many such legacies which should give us all hope for the future. The legacy of Deborah James, the bowel cancer babe is another example.

How do you demonstrate it? — Amity

In a myriad of ways, like those exemplars I just mentioned above. But such examples can also include, authoring a thread about hope on a philosophy website.

I wonder if love/desire ( or even hate) is necessary before any hope can take place. — Amity

I think it's hope that is fundamental. Why breathe or eat or drink, why not just stop and die? We hope that the next moment will be ok, that's why.

Any addiction or release from it relies on support. I'm with you there in pragmatic hope :100: — Amity

:up:

I don't know much about Sagan or the context in which he uses 'animated'.
Does he say anything about 'hope'? — Amity

It's from his book, The demon haunted world. The word 'spirit' in Latin literally translates as 'to breathe,' this is demonstrated by an animated or moving human chest, up and down, which indicates life. Nothing supernatural was originally suggested by the word spirit or spiritual.

Carl made many, many, many hope filled statements, such as:
"We embarked on our journey to the stars with a question first framed in the childhood of our species and in each generation, asked anew, with undiminished wonder: What are the stars? Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars."

"Better by far to embrace the hard truth, than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal."

Nina was one of the greatest singers there has ever been.
Who can doubt she really believed what she sang.
Isn't it a pity we ALL sometimes forget to give back and see the beauty around us and in each other.

From Latin for "song" – cantus, cantare, canto – comes, in English, chant, enchant and incantation which connotes, for me, to celebrate or express joy, whether in a major or minor key. — 180 Proof

How about this brilliant hope filled 'il canto' from Pavarotti. Excellent vid of everyday folks as well:

I don't see how a totally hypothetical "thought experiment" is supposed to demonstrate any facts. Yes, it explains in a way, the hypothesis of energy conservation, but as the first 1.5 seconds in the glider experiment shows, what happens in reality (significant energy loss) is not consistent with the hypothesis of energy conservation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Victor is trying to explain that e=mcsquared is a consequence of conservation law.
If energy was not conserved during pair production, then e=mcsquared would not be an equivalence, it would be an imbalance, such as e<mcsquared! This would mean that nuclear weapons would not be as powerful as we suggest they are, but this has not been the case during test explosions. The yields suggested are unfortunately (in the case of atom bombs) very accurate.

Until you recognize, and accept this point, that energy is not the property of a system, but something calculated from measurements and the application of formulae, then it is pointless for you and I to continue this discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree, you will never lift your fog until you understand that potential energy IS a property of a system.

That this is true, that energy is something calculated, and not a property of the system itself, is very evident from the way that PE may be calculated in this "arbitrary" way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Taking a measurement is an 'instantaneous' snapshot of the system properties at that moment.
We do not exist in a static universe, there is no such thing as empty space or nothing. Everything is dynamic, even at the Planck size. Everything jiggles/vibrates/moves.

Your 0.15 joule drop in the first 1.5 seconds for that particular experiment is just based on your own bad and bias guesstimation. It seems much closer to 0.09 or 0.1 joules to me. BUT what you don't seem to get is that this is down to the complexity of the overall system involved. The fact that potential energy is a measure of many other energies present, not just gravitational, but electrical, chemical and nuclear as well, so depending on the instantaneous state of the system when measured, there is some error bar involved. There is in fact no energy loss involved, it is just difficult to achieve 100% accuracy when accounting for all the energy conversions involved due to tiny air resistance, heat generated due to the fact the system is dynamic, tiny (most inaudible to the human ear) sounds created etc. This accounts for the 0.1 joules your whole claim so depends upon. A very unstable peg indeed to hang your personal credence on. You also offer no counter evidence at all of what you think happens to what you are trying to peddle as missing or 'hidden' or as @180 Proof correctly labelled 'occult,' energy.

The KE at 1.5 sec is 0.6 joules, at the first collision this becomes 0, due to the collision and then the direction is reversed, and the KE becomes positive, after the collision and then becomes 0 again before changing direction again. The PE similarly becomes positive and negative based on the direction of motion. The PE at 1.5 sec is not zero as the glider remains on an incline, just before the first collision.
The back wheels of the glider will be higher than the front wheels. The PE of the system at that point is complicated, as it is during its full motion, as on an incline, the length of the glider, means that the back of the glider has a little more PE than the front, due to the small difference in height.
PE would be better calculated as an average of mgh calculations along the length of the glider, during the motion on the inclines, which would reduce the error bar involved. I don't know if the heights were taken at the centre point of the glider as it moved down the incline.

This experiment clearly demonstrates that energy is conserved in this system.
Your 'silly' massaging of the error bars involved in the measurements is just an attempt to sensationalise those who love 'conspiracy' based conjectures. You are making a pathetic attempt at suggesting all physicists who support and agree with the conservation of energy law are in some way misleading the public and you, mr undercover, are one of those who are trying to expose those lying physicists! :rofl:
You delude yourself sir! I think the vast majority of TPF members will see that.

The triumph of human hope over pernicious religious or spiritual woo woo.
We need human spirit yes. But I prefer the original meaning of spirit as Carl Sagan described it, 'animated.'

What you claim here is the gambler's fallacy, that leads to addiction. — unenlightened

Ok, in that case, I fully recommend addiction to hope! It will destroy your fears!
I remain hopeful that most people can defeat any compulsion to become addicted to gambling.
If some can't, then I remain hopeful that we can put supports in place to 'save' those addicted to gambling.

Here is a good offering from Victor Toth(quora), describing conservation occurring during pair production.
Might help you appreciate the concepts involved:

Mass cannot be converted into energy for the same reason (more or less) water cannot be converted into a liquid: it already is energy.

Einstein’s 1905 paper, mentioned in the video, makes it very clear: The inertia (i.e., what we call mass) of an object is its energy content. All forms of energy, combined. This may include rest mass, but for most elementary particles, there is no true rest mass (e.g., the rest mass of the electron is really a result of how it interacts with the Higgs field’s vacuum expectation value, not an inherent rest mass.) In any case, energy can be converted from one form into another (e.g., potential energy may be converted into kinetic energy) but mass plays no special role in this respect.

To stress this point, let me offer a thought experiment in the spirit of the video. Suppose we have a box lined with perfect mirrors, and inside that box, an electron and a positron. We weigh the box on a perfect scale, and find that its mass is the mass of the box plus the masses of the electron and the positron.

But now we let the electron and the positron inside the box collide, and let their combined “mass convert into energy”, namely the kinetic energy of the two photons that are produced in their annihilation. So we converted mass into energy, right?

Not quite. Those two photons, still inside the box, now keep bouncing back and forth between those perfect mirrors, forming an electromagnetic field that carries the same amount of energy that was the combined mass-energy of the electron and the positron. If we weigh the box on our perfect scale, the box’s mass remains unchanged: It is still the mass of the box proper, plus the mass of an electron and the mass of a positron. That is because the total energy content of the box has not changed, despite the dramatic conversion of the electron-positron pair therein into a pair of photons.

Hope destroys fear. Hope is far more powerful than love or evil imo. Hope allows you to die, and as you die, you can still maintain a belief that our species will do better in the future. Even those who have experienced holocaust and ethnic cleansing, can demonstrate hope, often, even before they mention love or hate or revenge.

As I said, after the first collision, at approximately 1.5 seconds, they started with the "arbitrary" figure for potential energy. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think it's you, who continues to clearly demonstrate your lack of understanding of the experiment presented. The use of the word 'arbitrary,' as presented in the experiment relates to potential energy as described in texts such as:
https://www.britannica.com/science/potential-energy
A snippet from this text is:
The value of potential energy is arbitrary and relative to the choice of reference point. In the case given above, the system would have twice as much potential energy if the initial position were the bottom of a 10-foot-deep hole. (I tried to explain this to you in an earlier posting.)
In the experiment PE is calculated as mgh alone, h reduces as the glider goes down the slope, which is why the experimenters clearly state:
As the glider moves down the ramp, value of h becomes negative. This negative value of PE annihilates the positive value of KE that is produced due to increasing velocity. Thus the total energy remains zero.
I don't think you are playing dumb, I think you really don't understand the physics involved in the experiment AT ALL. Do you have any qualifications in physics from school? I stopped studying physics after 1st year uni, as I focused on maths and computing in year 2 and full computing in years 3 and 4 of my honour's degree course. How about you?

Your last post shows that you are reaching a state of 'babble,' due to your lack of understanding of how potential energy is calculated. Do you understand why, "the system would have twice as much potential energy if the initial position were the bottom of a 10-foot-deep hole." is true?

Here are another two snippets from the link above that may help lift your fog;
Potential energy is a property of a system and not of an individual body or particle.
and
Potential energy also includes other forms. The energy stored between the plates of a charged capacitor is electrical potential energy. What is commonly known as chemical energy, the capacity of a substance to do work or to evolve heat by undergoing a change of composition, may be regarded as potential energy resulting from the mutual forces among its molecules and atoms. Nuclear energy is also a form of potential energy.

Another useful understanding to gain is:
The first law of thermodynamics
Within an isolated system, the total energy of the system is constant, even if energy has been converted from one form to another. (This is another way of stating the law of conservation of energy.) If the system is not isolated, the change in a system’s internal energy ΔU is equal to the difference between the heat Q added to the system from its surroundings and the work W done by the system on its surroundings; that is, ΔU = Q − W.

As gentle as a lion can be, eh? — Agent Smith

A valid image. A lion is not very good at physics either.

How can you be so obtuse, MU, confusing the "lack of 100% efficiency" in thermodynamic processes with occult "energy loss"? — 180 Proof

I think this is a reasonable comparison.

as is evident from the first 1.5 seconds, there is actually significant energy loss, just in the movement of the glider. — Metaphysician Undercover

Only based on your inaccurate, bias guestimates. Here are some of my guestimates based on graph 3:

Between t= 1.6 and t= 3.9 seconds. The curved broken line has a min at approx 0.52 joules and a max of approx 0.58 joules. A difference of 0.06 joules. Quite a difference from your 15% claim.

Between t = 4sec and 5.9 sec. The total energy line has a min at approx 0.39 (on the left min and perhaps 0.38 on the right min) and a max of 0.4 joules. A difference of 0.01 or 0.02 joules.

You have already been told that such tiny energy losses are negligible and are due to tiny energy conversions from mechanical energy to other forms such as heat, sound etc. You choose to ignore this and suggest that these tiny energy losses go 'elsewhere.' I can therefore understand why @180proof suggests you are trying to plug in some woo woo idea that the energy loss could be labelled 'occult energy.' Occult in this sense just means 'hidden.' But it is also a traditional reference to the supernatural, which I think is part of your MO. I think your agenda is to keep the possibility of a supernatural existent alive. That's how you come across to me, but I admit I could be wrong in that impression.
I think you are losing more and more credibility, the more you type. Your arguments are almost becoming incoherent.

If you don't think these tiny losses in energy are converted to 'other' energy types, (perhaps some even becomes dark energy. See, just like you, I can offer total conjecture as well.) What occult (hidden) substance do you think it becomes? Surely your 'Meta' approach can come up with some alternative suggestions. Dark matter? It heads straight for the nearest supermassive black hole? It becomes small living creatures in another existence. It is exchanged with the multiverse? God sucks it up? anything you would like to offer us?

Your concerns are well founded and are noted. Based on your profile, you have much more experience on TPF than I. Getting the balance correct is not easy. If we don't offer a platform to even those who are good at fooling many people, again and again, then I think they remain a clear and present danger.
My turn of phrase here is probably way overblown, when it comes to the importance of the massaging of the facts used by MU. I think however, as a general rule, it's better to try to combat bad ideas than ignore them and let them fester and grow in the shadows.
You have to risk it to win the biscuit. BUT, sometimes, things can turn out exactly as you suggest with:

where clear arguments refuting his position had him doubling down, as he did here, while attracting more support than was healthy - mostly from those who, while not agreeing with him, wanted to support his right to be wrong. — Banno

Old habits die hard guys. 30+ years as a secondary school teacher.
My remit was to cause learning. I never gave up on a pupil.
I mean no insult to Mr MU by typing that. I am no longer in a classroom, teaching teenagers, and I certainly don't consider Mr MU akin to a secondary school pupil.
He is stubborn in his attempts to use minor points to make major claims, and I can be equally stubborn in my wish to combat such sophistry.
I hope you can forgive my laborious persistence, especially as you seem to think it is a pointless effort, and you are probably correct, as far as Mr MU is concerned, but his are not the only eyes in the readership of TPF. Bad ideas can be prevented from doing any significant damage, if enough voices of dissent and reason are raised against them.
What then remains, is who becomes convinced by what is stated or written by whom and what results come from that. I may indeed be having no positive effects at all with anyone who reads any of my posts on TPF but like most members here, I will continue to try.
I do however appreciate your point that it's wise to choose not to overstay or overburden the welcome of the audience of a particular thread.

You've done mighty yeoman's work talking physical science to an incorrigible pseudo-scientist. — 180 Proof

Thanks for your support, I appreciate it and I agree with your assessment of the situation.
You have inspired me to make one further attempt to get through his foggy thinking!



There are 3 graphs in the experiment that I provided the link to. I assume your 0.15 joules drop in energy within the first 1.5 sec of one run of the experiment is something you have garnished from the third graph in figure ii. Are you basing this on something like 0.9 (the initial total energy shown on the graph at t=0) minus 0.75 (your guestimate of the total energy read from graph 3 at t = 1.5 sec) to arrive at your 0.15 joules drop? If that's your basis for the 0.15 joules drop, then it is probably quite inaccurate.
If you are going to employ numbers, then you really should include all your working, so that others can more easily assist you. Graph 3, clearly shows the results of 5 collisions with the buffer. Potential, kinetic and total energy are shown.
The shapes created by each of the 5 graph sections are pretty close to identical. They just reduce in height each time, due to the collisions. The symmetry is obvious. Energy is conserved.
Any small range of total energies, between collisions, is indicated by the 'curved shape' of the tops of the total energy line (the small broken lines that overall, look like slightly rounded castle turrets.) The tiny energy amounts lost, will be a combination of a tiny air resistance and some tiny sound and heat exchanges. All just different energy type conversions, which are negligible for this macro experiment.

Is there a way to frame all this to something beneath the concepts involved like a mathematical equation? — Andrew4Handel

Yes, life happened in this universe without intent, so that happenstance has no moral component.

Of course you can insist that you CAN attribute this to a change in form, but that's simply an unsupported claim by someone who knows nothing about energy. And I will ignore such nonsensical claims. — Metaphysician Undercover

Feel free to ignore science all you want and remain delusional about what you think you know about energy conservation. I will continue to listen to those who actually do know what they are talking about, namely, physicists and not metaphysicians.

The point is that this is just an assertion, which is contrary to experimental evidence. The evidence shows that all the energy can never be accounted for, even when all known energy loss is added up. So it is just an unsupported claim, that all the energy loss is energy changing form, along with the claim that the amount of energy in the universe actually stays the same. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are also making a complete assertion. Where is your exemplar experimental evidence from an experiment that proves any energy loss cannot be attributed to energy which has changed form?

Therefore, to say that there is energy which is not accessible to us, having been transformed to entropy, is oxymoronic, self-contradicting.
It is only by insisting that the law of conservation must be true, that people get forced into strange conclusions, like your suggestion that there is energy which has escaped the universe. — Metaphysician Undercover

We cannot currently detect dark energy, yet something must be making the expansion rate of the universe accelerate. Dark energy, the mysterious force that causes the universe to accelerate, may have been responsible for unexpected results from the XENON1T experiment, deep below Italy’s Apennine Mountains.
Which noted physicist, claims undetectable energy causes entropy? I think you are just making stuff up in your own head.

The problem is that if the total energy actually did remain constant, it could be proven. It could be shown exactly what happens to all the energy, in experimental transactions. But this cannot be done. The reason why it cannot be proven is because it is false. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, because physicists are dishonest people who label falsities as 'laws of physics,' just to fool all undercover metaphysicians? :rofl: Is that what you are trying to peddle here.

I don't think so universeness. If you make an assertion such as "the total energy in the universe remains unchanged", then the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, since every experiment which has ever been carried out indicates that energy is always lost, this is very strong evidence that the assertion is false. — Metaphysician Undercover

You assert that the experiments performed by physicists to demonstrate conservation of energy and confirm that conclusion in their published results are false. So, prove it, using compelling counter evidence that any tiny energy loss is NOT converted to another form, that's your burden, just like it's the burden of theists to prove their god fantasies actually have real existents (or at least 1).

You have provided two experiments. Each has shown energy loss. My claim is that every experiment shows energy loss, and I am not about to give reference to every experiment. But your task is easy, if what you say (that total energy is conserved) is true, just show me one experiment which demonstrates this. Doing this will disprove my claim. That's why I suggested we move along to look at experiments carried out in a vacuum condition. — Metaphysician Undercover

You don't get to sit back in your armchair, pretending to be a warrior. Your task should be the easy one.
Reference just one experiment that shows that any energy loss CANNOT be attributed to a change of energy form. Surely any fully qualified undercover meta has access to many such proofs!

Energy loss is energy changing form. The total energy in the universe remains unchanged.
There is no evidence of an 'outside' of the universe for any energy form to leak into or act as a new source of energy that this universe can tap into. But just like I can't prove god/ the immaterial/ the supernatural does not exist, I cannot prove the total energy in the universe remains constant.
I think the majority view in science, currently supports the first law of thermodynamics.
The burden of proof that it is a false law, remains with those, like you, who claim it is false.
You have so far, provided no compelling evidence whatsoever. You have only offered your own musings and interpretations based on having no (same as me,) high level qualifications in physics.

Space and time are relative to who is aware of them. And the state of their awareness. — Benj96

I don't see what observational reference frames or relative experiences of space and time have to do with the material existence of space and time. I exist in space and time. Someone in a long term coma does not experience space and time whilst they are in a coma, that is not evidence that space and time are not real. When I die and you die and the Earth dies, space and time will still exist.

We only collapse the waveform when we communicate - that is to say when you observe me - hear my thoughts, observe/measure my articulations as discrete/finite représentations of my internal experience. — Benj96

Random happenstance has been an aspect of the universe since the big bang. Everything that exists, is the result of random combinations of fundamentals. It is no surprise to me that this is part of the workings of the brain. Random thought can be collapsed into a focused thought. There is no need to communicate such a thought to anyone else, you can if you choose to but you don't have to, for the thought to have value.

I would be unwilling to consider your imagination (waveform) as invalid, as non material and irrelavent, for that exact sphere of possibility is precisely where you take fresh ideas from to articulate to me in hopes to change/alter my perspective.
If I were to discard your imagination, I am discarding anything you can propose that is not already known. So no enlightenment, no change, no fresh air, is available for me to consider. — Benj96

I did not suggest imaginings had NO value, what I typed was:

Your 'random imaginings,' would imo, be in the main, unimportant, yes. But we are able to, 'collapse the waveform' of our random imaginings, into a useful thought, on occasion. — universeness

Unimportant does not mean no value. I might randomly imagine different animal variations but that's not particularly important thinking, unless I decide to focus and collapse such random musings into a pink panther and then create a cartoon series based on it.

However, they are all existents in the universe because you used them, as many other do, and we all exist in the universe, as products of its possible state's of being. — Benj96

No, only the word and the concept exists, not the physical reality. I can use the word god or ghost but based on the lack of any compelling evidence, I can and do claim that neither exists. The existence of the word and the concept is completely trivial.

If you knew the ultimate reality, I would be happy to allow you to assume the role of the single most important, significant and revelationary person on earth, totally and unequivocally famous for your unanimous and comprehensive description of "all things". But seeing as I disagree with you and posit my own logic in direct contention with yours, you must either explain sufficiently why I am wrong or contend with the idea that your own beliefs are innacurate/incomplete/imperfect/biased/prejudiced.

So which is it? Are you prepared to declare yourself as all knowing or do you consider yourself as open to debate/further learning from others on the forum/further afield? — Benj96

I have already stated that no omnis exist. So what we have, in reality is over 8 billion humans who have varied opinions on what reality is and what does and does not exist. We await further evidence. As for you and your posits based on your own logic. You, like me, simply add to the choices available for support from others like you and me. As the French say, vive la différence!

Your musings seem to jump around in very bizarre ways, from small gliders on small ramps to carts and now big cars travelling on big roads against 100km/h winds.
Come back when you can better control your mad jumps towards extreme exaggerations and then perhaps you will begin to understand when variables such as air resistance and friction can become negligible when they are tiny, compared to the other variables involved in the experiment.

you do not even have the most basic education in physics — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, neither do physicists who do physics experiments, according to you. :rofl:

No, you have killed our exchange.

I think I understand physics far better than you do!
You type an insult like:

I see it is pointless discussing this with you. You are in complete denial, and refuse to even attempt to understand some simple physics. — Metaphysician Undercover

and then you ask me to consider another of your 'interpretations,' of what the experiment shows. :lol:
We have reached impasse!

Then point to them. As they are apparently material objects. Show me the object that is time, is space? — Benj96

One of my fingers is currently pointing into space and I do so as time passes. I can therefore indicate/represent pointing at space and time by raising a finger and I can confirm verbally and by thought and by typing these words on TPF, that that is what I am doing.

Well then my internal mind has no importance to you. As the privacy of my inner thoughts must either not exist, or has no importance. But it certainly cannot be materially demonstrated as it is the sum of my entire internal experience - inaccesible and un-measurable by objective means. — Benj96

What are you defining, physically/materially, as your 'internal mind?
Your 'random imaginings,' would imo, be in the main, unimportant, yes. But we are able to, 'collapse the waveform' of our random imaginings, into a useful thought, on occasion.

This is analogous to a waveform no? Potential to be in more than one place simultaneously. — Benj96

Based on wave/particle duality (my favourite flavour of dualism), yes. Then of course there is QFT.
From Quora:
Rodney Brooks (Ph.D. in Physics, Harvard University (Graduated 1963))
This question is right up my alley, as I wrote my book to show how QFT explains almost everything.

Superposition is a term in Quantum Mechanics that refers to the simultaneous existence of two different states of a physical system. For example, an electron (seen as a particle) is said to be in a superposition of being both here and there. In QFT there are no superpositions. An electron is a spread-out field, not a particle, so it is indeed “both here and there”. QFT offers a picture of reality at every instant: fields (or to be more precise, quanta of fields) that are spread-out. This may be a complex picture, but it is a picture, not a superposition.

Entanglement generally refers to a pair of quanta (say two photons) that are created together so that their properties are correlated. If a physical property of one of ther pair changes, the other one does also, and at the same time. The QFT explanation of this is quantum collapse. When a quantum transfers energy into another object, it collapses and disappears from all of space. Even if only part of the energy is transferred, it still collapses and reappears at the point of transfer. In the case of entangled quanta, if one collapses, the other one must do the same, and at the same moment. Experiments with photons have shown that if the spin of one entangled photon changes, the spin of the other also changes, no matter how far apart the photons are. (This is an example of internal collapse, as opposed to the spatial collapse described earlier.) Einstein called this “spooky action at a distance”, but collapse of two entangled quanta is no harder to accept (or spookier) than the collapse of one. If we can accept that a single quantum, spread over miles of space, can instantaneously collapse, it is not much of a stretch to accept that two entangled quanta can do the same.

If everything in the universe is natural where does the term "supernatural" come from? I — Benj96

The same place as the term 'nothing,' and other meaningless words such as 'meaningless' or 'perfect' or 'god' or 'immaterial.' or 'square circle,' or 'moral capitalist.'

What do you mean exactly by "compelling example" and "existent immaterial ?" — Benj96

An example, that would be very difficult to label anything other than immaterial.
An example whose existence would be very difficult to deny and can demonstrate immaterial/supernatural ability.

Is a "compelling example" for you in this sense "material evidence" of the immaterial? As that would by logical necessity be a contradiction of terms. — Benj96

Well, you could suggest something like quantum tunnelling, where a material object (eg an electron) can simply appear on one side of a barrier and then another.
Quantum tunnelling limits the minimum size of devices used in microelectronics because electrons tunnel readily through insulating layers and transistors that are thinner than about 1 nm.
You might also suggest 'superposition,' where the same object can be in two places at once.
You might suggest you had a dream about slipping three times on the ice and then the next day you slipped three times on the ice.
I would not find any of my examples above, compelling suggestions that deserve the label 'immaterial' existents or events.

Immaterial things - like energy and time and space, can only be measured indirectly from the bias of material existence. By subtraction. By deductive reasoning. — Benj96

Energy, time and space are not immaterial. This is reducing, as these kinds of discissions often do, to definitions. To me, immaterial is synonymous with supernatural and I think everything in the universe is natural.

'Cause,' is not immaterial. I lift a cup, which causes the cup to exist in a different position and act as a container that I can drink from. This is material purposing material, nothing immaterial is involved.

Your typings about rarity etc, just seem to me like attempts to plug gaps in knowledge with unconfirmed, speculative opinion based on personal musings. Interesting to read but no more so than reading a novel.
I engage in such musings myself, often, and I think humans should always do so, as sometimes it inspires the odd genius to do detailed research, and on rare occasions, discover some previously unknown nugget of new knowledge.
I remain of the opinion, that there is no existent that warrants the label 'immaterial.'
The best use of that word is to indicate that which has no value, no importance, no significance.

I find your concerns relatively trivial. I see no issue with your insistence that at the start, we should take the total energy as mph, where h is not taken as the origin point (0,0). It will not make much difference, as during the gliders journey towards the bumper, ALMOST all of the PE converts to KE (apart from the small amount of PE left due to the glider being on an incline, as it hits the bumper)

You do not produce high quality references universes. The experiment is completely invalid, and this one is even worse. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think we are still waiting for you to provide high quality references to support your claims. You certainly have not done so, so far.

So we have two significant sources of energy loss in the cart example, friction and air resistance. — Metaphysician Undercover

No the concerns you raise are again, exaggerated. There were no 100 km/h winds during the experiment and friction from (within the wheel??) and/or the axle will be negligible.

Perhaps you can, one day, perform a detailed, controlled conservation of energy experiment, yourself, inside a vacuum chamber and report/publish your findings.

ITS ALL RELATIVE!

The Earth is rotating on its axis at about 1,674.4 km/h (1,040.4 mph)
The orbital speed of the Earth around the Sun is 108,000 km/h.
The orbital speed of our solar system around the centre of the milkyway is about 700,000 kilometers per hour.
If you/I were (as Einstein tried to imagine himself) sitting on a photon, as it travelled at light speed. Then just like me, sitting typing this, I would experience no sensation of movement at all and from my reference frame, I would age and time would pass, at the exact same rate it does now.
It appears to us that a photon does not age and an object travelling away from us at light speed will look redshifted. Carl Sagan gives a good example, in his COSMOS series, in the 4.5 min clip below:

The main point though, is that the conservation of energy in the conversion of PE to KE in the downward motion, is simply manufactured by designating the original PE as equal to the maximum KE. The experimenters even admit this by referring to the arbitrariness in the value of PE. So there is no proof made, just a begging of the question. The original PE is stipulated as equal to the KE when the glider reaches the bottom, and low and behold, all the PE is converted to KE when the glider reaches the bottom, according to what the stipulation necessitates. — Metaphysician Undercover

In the section titled 'Experimental Description,' it states: "The glider was kept at the top of ramp at rest."
In the section titled 'Data and Analysis:' it states: "PE was defined to be zero on ground level. " and "In start, PE is the maximum and KE is zero. "
The article further establishes:
"To read total energy as zero at certain point, we can construct the following simplest case. Consider the glider to be at rest at a height from the ground on the ramp (say 80cm). Obviously, KE is zero. We define the origin at this point. So its height w.r.t. origin becomes zero. Now we measure PE with reference to the same point (because of arbitrariness of PE) which becomes mgh = mg(0) =0. Thus the total energy at this point is zero. As far as the conservation of energy is concerned, that is satisfied because we have defined origin at the highest point. As the glider moves down the ramp, value of h becomes negative. This negative value of PE annihilates the positive value of KE that is produced due to increasing velocity. Thus the total energy remains zero. Another way of doing the same is to define PE to be zero at the highest point, measure height as positive and add a minus sign with the formula for the PE in the equation of the total energy."

So, the PE is the same at a height of 80cm as it would be if it were at height = 0, so, mgh is 0 at the start and becomes negative as the glider travels down the slope.
KE = 0 at the start, as the glider is at rest at the top of the ramp. This start position is then taken as position (0,0), the origin point on a graph.
Based on this and the data in table 1, I think this calculation for 'point 0,' is valid:

E=1/2mv(squared) - mgh
As the total energy is 0, we have:
0=1/2mv(squared) - mgh
mgh=1/2mv(squared)
substituting gives:
0.6677(9.8)1.2=1/2(0.6677)vsquared
7.852152=0.33385vsquared
23.52=vsquared
v=4.849742261

So, if the velocity of the glider at point 0 (height at 1.2 and mass at 0.6677) is measured in the experiment at point 0 to be, 4.849742261, then conservation of energy is confirmed. I don't know what error bar would be applied to this calculation, as I am not a physicist.

The article also states:
"But we see that PE is not zero at its minimum. This non-zero minimum value is the value of the PE at the small height when it collides with the bumper."
So, this is simply suggesting that at the moment before the glider strikes the bumper, all of the PE has not been transformed into KE as the glider is still on an incline (the back of the glider more so, than the front).

You might find the references section of the article helpful as well, especially:
2. Energy Conservation on an Incline. Available from: [Online]
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/energy/ie.cfm

For example, the link contains:
In the case of the cart rolling down the incline, there are three external forces (the normal force, the force of friction and air resistance) and one internal force (the force of gravity). The normal force does not do work upon the cart because it acts in a direction perpendicular to the direction of motion. In such instances, the angle between F and d is 90 degrees and the work done by the force is 0 Joules. The force of friction does not do work upon the cart because it acts upon the wheels of the cart and actually does not serve to displace either the cart nor the wheels. The friction force only serves to help the wheels turn as the cart rolls down the hill. Friction only does work upon a skidding wheel. Finally, the force of air resistance does do work upon the cart; air resistance does negative work upon the cart since it acts in a direction opposite the direction of the cart's motion. Sometimes referred to as a dissipative force, air resistance contributes to a loss in the total amount of mechanical energy possessed by the cart. Subsequently, it would be expected that there would be a small amount of energy loss as the cart rolls down the hill from an elevated position to a position just above the ground.

Due to the difficulty in measuring air resistance forces and due to the small amount of existing Fair in situations in which a streamlined object moves at relatively low speeds, the affect of air resistance is often neglected. If air resistance is neglected, then it would be expected that the total mechanical energy of the cart would be conserved. The animation below depicts this phenomenon (in the absence of air resistance).

Which clarifies an earlier concern you had.

Surely funerals are their thanksgiving equivalents, especially each other's.
They can sing their anti-life ditties about the glorious joys of oblivion.