It might be better for you to start a new thread on a physics forum, which employs the detailed results, from an actual conservation of energy experiment. You can challenge physicists, based on your interpretation of the results from the experiment. There are some straight forward examples available online, such as:
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/physics/experiment-study-conservation-energy-8335.php — universeness
If any aspect of the 'immaterial' is knowable then it seems to me, that such never was immaterial, and if the immaterial truly does exist, then it has no relevance to this universe, unless it can be irrefutably demonstrated (or at least, very close to irrefutably), that the immaterial can affect this universe. — universeness
" For first task, we found that kinetic energy increases as potential energy decreases during downward motion of the glider but the total energy remains almost constant". Notice the experimenters state "almost constant", in the introduction and "remains constant" in the conclusion which you've quoted, It appears like they contradict themselves. So what happened here? — Metaphysician Undercover
The first task is an indication of the theory of gravity. Potential energy is calculated through the measured mass of the glider and the theoretical force of gravity which has the capacity to accelerate the glider as it falls from a height. We know that as things fall, acceleration rapidly decreases due to things like air resistance, so there is a substantial loss of energy occurring with a falling object. There is no indication that the experiment was carried out in a vacuum, or any means were employed to measure all the different losses of energy which might occur. How did the experimenters account for all this loss of energy, which actually occurs in practise? — Metaphysician Undercover
Of course, they applied a "coefficient of restitution", and this coefficient varies according to the measured parameters, height and mass. That is demonstrated in task two. There is an arbitrariness to the setting of this coefficient, and this is what allows them to make the total energy equal zero, by adjusting this coefficient. In other words, that there is a perfect balance between potential energy and kinetic energy, and this is reported as remaining constant, is simply a product of the coefficient of restitution, which is a manifestation of "the arbitrariness of the value of PE": as stated. Notice that the coefficient of restitution which was required varied according to mass and height, but in this experiment it was very significant, between .63, and .77. In other words, the theoretical potential energy, which would be directly produced from the theory of gravity, needed to be reduced by about a quarter or a third, to match the determined kinetic energy in the falling glider. That's a significant loss of energy. — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you agree that the experiment completely supports what I've been arguing? — Metaphysician Undercover
The underlined section in your above quote appears in the section titled 'Abstract,' not Introduction.
In the introduction, the words are "For the first task, we simply observed that during the first downward motion of the glider the total energy remained constant throughout the motion." In the Results and conclusions section the words "For task 1: we have found that total energy remains constant during the motion of the glider until the collision occurs". are used. — universeness
So, it seems to me, the COR is only relevant to the issue of the collisions being elastic or inelastic. — universeness
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
So, the PE is the same at a height of 80cm as it would be if it were at height = 0, so, mgh becomes 0 at the start and becomes negative as the glider travels down the slope. — universeness
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 — universeness
They completely neglect the fact that there is considerable friction within the wheel or axle bearing, no matter how well built or lubricated it may be.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.
You do not produce high quality references universes. The experiment is completely invalid, and this one is even worse. — Metaphysician Undercover
So we have two significant sources of energy loss in the cart example, friction and air resistance. — Metaphysician Undercover
You have provided no compelling example of an existent immaterial, other than your attempt to label some currently, poorly understood, aspects of human consciousness as 'immaterial.' — universeness
An example, that would be very difficult to label anything other than immaterial.What do you mean exactly by "compelling example" and "existent immaterial ?" — 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.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
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
You might also suggest 'superposition,' where the same object can be in two places at once. — universeness
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. — universeness
Energy, time and space are not immaterial. — universeness
The best use of that word is to indicate that which has no value, no importance, no significance — universeness
This is analogous to a waveform no? Potential to be in more than one place simultaneously. — Benj96
If everything in the universe is natural where does the term "supernatural" come from? I — Benj96
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
Then point to them. As they are apparently material objects. Show me the object that is time, is space? — Benj96
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. — universeness
and then you ask me to consider another of your 'interpretations,' of what the experiment shows. :lol: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! — universeness
I think I understand physics far better than you do!
You type an insult like: — universeness
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. — universeness
you do not even have the most basic education in physics — Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah, neither do physicists who do physics experiments, according to you. — universeness
No, you have killed our exchange. — universeness
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. — universeness
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. — universeness
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.' — universeness
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. — universeness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.