Objects in motion possess (or are) kinetic energy. Gravity is not a kinetic energy. Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces in nature. The other three are electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. Kinetic energy is not a fundamental force but a force that is bound to objects. — Ron Cram
That's a good question. One element Newton and others look for is physical necessity. — Ron Cram
Math can show that a physical necessity is at work, even if the physical necessity is not clearly understood. — Ron Cram
You are asking the wrong questions. Why not try to find an argument that will refute the examples I've given instead of trying to change the subject? — Ron Cram
Cause and effect are directly observable. — Ron Cram
Every physicist in the world has been taught that Newton's third law of motion is also called Newton's Law of Cause and Effect. How can you verify my claim that Newton's third law is commonly called Newton's Law of Cause and Effect? Let me Google that for you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Newton%27s%20law%20of%20cause%20and%20effect%22 — Ron Cram
A quick scroll down the Google results of "Newton's Law of Cause and Effect" shows a bunch of fringe notions that look to be trying to blame Newton for stuff he didn't say. — Banno
I simply ask you what you directly observe. Answer pending.... — tim wood
I don't wholly buy into the Principle of Sufficient Reason either. — ChatteringMonkey
Some small number of folk do call Newton;s third Law the Law of Cause and Effect. It's certainly not common, and it is also misleading.
SO it seems to me that unfortunately your research is misguided. — Banno
But with billiard balls, you aren't feeling them, so the second ball might have moved without the first hitting it. — Gregory
So science is subjective!!! Your attempt to salvage it is not working. — Gregory
1. One billiard ball moves, strikes a second ball and causes it to move. This is cause and effect. What you are observing is a transfer of kinetic energy. The first billiard ball "has" or "is" kinetic energy. Either term is acceptable because kinetic energy exists because the ball is moving. The kinetic energy and the moving ball are inextricable. Because two solid objects cannot occupy the same space, when the first ball strikes the second, it causes the second ball to move. The first ball has slowed or stopped and the second ball which was stopped is now moving. That you are observing a transfer of kinetic energy is plainly obvious. — Ron Cram
No. It's what you call cause and effect. Ask yourself what is actually happening, in this and the rest of your examples. What, for example, is "one"? What, for example, is a "billiard ball"? What, for example, is "moves"? And so forth.1. One billiard ball moves, strikes a second ball and causes it to move. This is cause and effect. — Ron Cram
First, we cannot say that the ball "is" kinetic energy, because a ball is more than just that, and the fact that it stops moving and has no more kinetic energy, in your example indicates that it is more than just kinetic energy. — Metaphysician Undercover
After the first ball strikes the second ball, the first ball no longer has kinetic energy, and the second ball has kinetic energy. So one ball looses kinetic energy, and another ball gains kinetic energy. — Metaphysician Undercover
By what principle do you say that this is a "transfer"? One object looses a property and another gains a similar property, why would this be a transfer of property? — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you observe the property coming off of the one and going into the other? — Metaphysician Undercover
If it is true that two solid objects cannot occupy the same space, how does this premise validate your claim that one object transfers a property to another? — Metaphysician Undercover
What we observe is that one object ceases to be in motion, and the other starts to be in motion. We do not see any transfer of motion. — Metaphysician Undercover
When you understand a ball as consisting of many parts, molecules, rather than as a mass with a centre of gravity, you'll see that all the kinetic energy of the one ball must be transformed into potential energy before that potential energy can act as a force to accelerate the second ball. — Metaphysician Undercover
So there is no transferral of kinetic energy, there is a deceleration of the first ball, as its kinetic energy is transformed to potential energy, and an acceleration of the second ball, as that potential energy acts to create kinetic energy in the second ball. Potential energy acts as a medium between the two instances of kinetic energy, therefore there is no transferral of kinetic energy, only two instances of kinetic energy, with potential energy separating the two. — Metaphysician Undercover
Correct. This is why we call it a transfer of kinetic energy. — Ron Cram
Because of the conservation of energy. — Ron Cram
No, we observe one slow or stop and the other begin to move. — Ron Cram
Because two solid objects cannot occupy the same space, when one moves into that space, the second ball has to move out of the space. This is the physical necessity I've explained. — Ron Cram
No, what we see is a transfer of kinetic energy. The first ball was moving, now the second ball is moving. It was knocked out of its space because two solid objects cannot occupy the same space. — Ron Cram
False. Kinetic energy does not need to be transformed into potential energy before doing any work. Kinetic energy directly does work. — Ron Cram
False, but let's say this weird theory were true. In that case, we would still be observing cause and effect. — Ron Cram
That one ball stops having kinetic energy, and the other one starts, does not mean that kinetic energy was transferred. — Metaphysician Undercover
Another problem with science is that it says that two identical things will always act in the same way. This is an assumption. Two things are at least in different places, which can affect how they act. — Gregory
Back this up with a mathematical demonstration then. — Metaphysician Undercover
1. Two billiard balls can occupy the same space. — Ron Cram
2. A flame does not require fuel to burn. — Ron Cram
3. A brick cannot cause a window to break. — Ron Cram
4. Decapitation does not cause death. — Ron Cram
You can plainly see that one ball has caused the other ball to move. What can you possibly gain by trying to deny what everyone can see with their own eyes? — Ron Cram
Every pool shark with $20 riding on the outcome of a game of 8 ball knows that cause and effect is in play. — Ron Cram
This next lesson explains that kinetic energy can do work directly as mechanical energy. — Ron Cram
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.