Its relevant only in that I am able to distinguish between a big force/explosion and a small one.
I can also use sensory info to be able to perceive quite a range between big and small, without having to employ actual measured, unitised, accuracy via formulae. I can therefore perceive and detect 'material' aspects of 'energy' or force using something as simplistic as my own sensory input and without application of formulae. — universeness
So, if we can't detect every Planck sized unit of energy, to confirm that the original hot/cold area has the exact same amount of energy as the area now in thermal balance, then this does not mean we have to start to employ words like immaterial or dualism. — universeness
To me, it's akin to the accuracy of pi or the speed of light in a Vaccuum. We will never get 100% accuracy, will we? That doesn't make pi or the speed of light or the conservation of energy laws, wrong in any way. — universeness
... or Newton's laws of motion. You claim there have been many experiments that falsify these "laws", so cite one. :chin:...the law of conservation is not true...
— Metaphysician Undercover
We're still waiting for the disproof of Noether's theorem (e.g. a "perpetual motion machine") ... — 180 Proof
Yoi claim there have been many experiments that falsify these "laws", so cite one. :chin: — 180 Proof
You do not need a standard for comparison that is universal with regard to speed and time. Everyone going at whatever velocity will have their own experience of time which differs from people going slower or faster then them. Just as there is no universal standard of size, there is none for time. An elephant is bigger than a mouse because of the environment it's in; if there was no space, but only an elephant next to a mouse, they would have the same size. As for moving in an instant, the instant represents the point that is covered which is yes zero. But these sum to a positive. This is something Aristotle never understood. Motion has a forward momentum. Air doesn't move an arrow as he thought. Motion is dynamic — Gregory
Okay, then cite some of those "experiments" (or the relevant literature) to which you're referring.My claim is that all experiments, each and every one of them has demonstrated that not all the energy conserved. — Metaphysician Undercover
"Mind" is what sufficiently complex brains (i.e. central nervous systems) do – how they phenomenally-semiotically interact with their environments. "Mind" is actuaally mind-ing – a predicate rather than a thing – like digesting or dancing. That's only a simplistic conceptual description of "mind"(ing) – that's all philosophy (whether via a materialist/physicalist or immaterialist/non-physicalist paradigm) can provide; and it's early days yet for any testable, scientific "explanation".... there is a need to explain mind also. — Mark Nyquist
Right, it does not make these laws wrong, it makes them false. They can still be correct, as long as we invoke some sort of dualism or something like that, to account for the incommensurability between our principles for measuring the world, and the reality of the world. — Metaphysician Undercover
I was thinking abstract concepts can only exist in our brains but not externally. — Mark Nyquist
Okay, then cite some of those "experiments" (or the relevant literature) to which you're referring. — 180 Proof
I think this is the main difference between us. I choose not to try to fill in gaps in our knowledge, with unnecessary terms like god(I am not suggesting YOU have employed this term), immaterial or dualism. The 'perfect' measure of the speed of light in unattainable. So is achieving human omniscience. To me, if we ever achieve the omnis, then our existence would become as ridiculous and pointless as any conception of god.
Let's continue to debate and confirm what we know and where we can go from here. Let's resist any temptation to plug gaps or incompletions in our scientific knowledge, with useless (imo) concepts, such as immaterialism, dualism or god. The conservation of energy is not false it is just imperfect. — universeness
In his book 'The Biggest Ideas In The Universe (space, time and motion,)' Sean Carroll writes about the conservation of energy.
"Both momentum and energy are conserved in classical mechanics, but kinetic energy by itself is not, since it can be converted into (or created from) other kinds of energy."
"Noether's theorem states that every smooth, continuous symmetry transformation of a system is associated with the conservation of some quantity."
"Our universe is expanding; faraway galaxies are gradually moving away from one another as time passes. Consequently, there is a sense in which energy is not conserved in an expanding universe."
I think Sean demonstrates some of the imperfection present in the conservation laws. — universeness
Notice, there is always energy loss, and "Energy losses are what prevent processes from ever being 100% efficient." Hence the inductive conclusion I made, the law of conservation has been proven to be false. — Metaphysician Undercover
I can't agree to this framework you've proposed here, because we cannot designate the law of conservation as "imperfect". — Metaphysician Undercover
The law is an ideal, a statement of perfection in the conservation of energy. In reality, in practise, there is no perfect or ideal conservation of energy. Yet we keep talking about this law, of a perfect or ideal conservation, as if it is a true representation, and we are led to believe that the reason why there is no perfect conservation in our practise is because we are no able to perfect our practise apparatus. — Metaphysician Undercover
And this type of imperfection (misrepresentation) is most properly called a falsity. — Metaphysician Undercover
there is not one hundred percent conservation anywhere, and our conception of energy is simply a misunderstanding. But we delude ourselves by saying that the concept is true and only our practises are imperfect, while the rest of the universe behaves in that perfect ideal way. — Metaphysician Undercover
Please take note now, of the lesson to be learned here. It was only by determining the falsity of the principle, the ideal, eternal circular motion, that astronomers could move forward, and model the orbits as other than circular, which led to the modern understanding of the solar system. It was imperative for them to recognize the falsity of the principle, that the perfection of the ideal did not exist in the real universe, for them to be able to move toward a true understanding of these motions. — Metaphysician Undercover
Now we have a very similar situation with the concept of energy. We have a similar false principle, an ideal, eternal energy conservation. Only by recognizing that this perfect ideal is false, that energy is not actually conserved in reality, in the true motions of things, that we will be able to move forward with a true understanding of time, motion, and all the real things involved in the concept of energy. — Metaphysician Undercover
So we have a whole class of these ideals, which are actually false, which have emerged out of this false ideal of energy conservation, which are simply misunderstandings, but can be very misleading to undisciplined metaphysicians. — Metaphysician Undercover
In the context of your link, the term Energy Loss refers to the energy that "is converted to a different form". — EricH
I am not making any claim about the truth or falsehood of the Law of Conservation here. I am simply pointing out that your example does not lead to your conclusion. — EricH
No measurement of a quantity is ever 100% correct. distance, time, density, none are 100% correct.
Is the distance actually 1cm or 0.999999999999999999999999912.......... cm.
You are over burdening the word LAW. — universeness
No, that's why science uses error bars! It is not a falsity, it just does not claim 100% accuracy. — universeness
The principle was not false, it was just that some of the assumptions and projections were wrong. Many planets do orbit on a path which is 'almost' circular. — universeness
No, physicists are fully aware, that the language used to describe the structure and workings of the universe is not IDEAL, not perfect. — universeness
A system has an energy equivalence of 50 joules. It then goes though energy transformations, and the resultant system has an energy equivalence of 50 joules — universeness
By definition a closed system is one in which energy is conserved. — Banno
We shouldn't let Bartricks claim immaterial events in our minds consume no energy. — Mark Nyquist
Show me this system which has 50 joules, and maintains 50 joules after energy transformations. That's 100 percent efficiency. No system has 100 percent efficiency, according to the article I linked, so I think you are just making things up, to support what you believe. — Metaphysician Undercover
In his book 'The Biggest Ideas In The Universe (space, time and motion,)' Sean Carroll writes about the conservation of energy.
"Both momentum and energy are conserved in classical mechanics, but kinetic energy by itself is not, since it can be converted into (or created from) other kinds of energy."
"Noether's theorem states that every smooth, continuous symmetry transformation of a system is associated with the conservation of some quantity."
"Our universe is expanding; faraway galaxies are gradually moving away from one another as time passes. Consequently, there is a sense in which energy is not conserved in an expanding universe." — 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.