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

I'm not a physicist, and do not pretend to be one. However, anyone can read the reported experiment, and attempt to understand what was carried out. I have read it from the point of view of a philosopher, and I will report my findings here, in a philosophy forum.

The experiment verifies very clearly what I have written. First, even with simple downward motion where the potential energy is simply converted to kinetic energy, through the acceleration caused by gravity, there is a loss of energy, as stated in the introduction: " 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?

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?

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.

Furthermore, in task 2, where the energy is actually transferred from one object to another, through collision, there is a further loss of energy, which needs to be accounted for by something other than the coefficient of restitution. The coefficient of restitution just accounts for the loss of energy within the falling object by arbitrarily adjusting the potential energy of gravity, but now there is a further loss when there is a collision of the object. Here, the bumper is said to be "inelastic". This means that the movement of the bumper, and the rebound of the glider, cannot account for all the kinetic energy of the falling glider. There is much energy that is lost. They account for this loss through the "inelasticity". We might assume that the bumper absorbs some as heat or something like that. Nevertheless, energy is lost, which cannot be accounted for, and this is written off as "inelasticity".

Notice the use of terms, elastic, and inelastic. An elastic object would demonstrate one hundred percent transferal of energy in its movement. But again, this is an ideal, like Banno's closed system. There is no such thing as an absolutely perfectly elastic body, just like there is no such thing as an absolutely closed system, and no such thing as a perfect eternal circular motion. The field of physics is rife with such fictitious ideals. We could consider also the use of the "blackbody", and the "symmetry". And so the experiment showed a loss of energy which they attribute to inelasticity, the bumper could not demonstrate an ideal conservation of energy.

In conclusion, the experiment showed significant loss of energy in the falling glider which was accounted for with the coefficient of restitution, and it also showed significant loss of energy in the collision which was accounted for by inelasticity. Do you agree that the experiment completely supports what I've been arguing?

Well he clarifies his position a little more, with:
"The configuration of our universe isn't invariant under time shifts; things used to be closer together, and in the future, they'll be further apart. If we simply take the energy contained in all the different forms of matter that we know about (radiation, ordinary matter, dark matter, dark energy, what have you) and add it all together, we get a number that is not constant over time."

I understand what you are typing but I don't hold the same view.
We can invent labels, for that which we have zero evidence for. Our brains however fail completely, whenever one tries to perceive infinity, or nothing, or perfect, or god, or immaterial. We mainly anthropomorphise or try to imagine or conjure some random pattern or effect. I hold that the structure and workings of the universe, are knowable. 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.

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

I think the immaterial does exist and is intangible to scientific means of exploration. Science cannot prove an individuals mind objectively. Not only because of the hard problem but because it would pervert ethics - the Right to privacy namely (the unknowability of one's mind and inner sphere.of experience).

As individuals are unique, irreplaceable and singular in occurrence. And science depends on reproducible results, repetition, constancy.

Also you simply cannot have material without immaterial. They are neccesary opposites. If you destroy the immaterial you do so by extending materialism beyond its purview.

I am not a physicist or a philosopher, so I am not best placed to debate the academic details involved in the example experiment I linked to. My expertise is Computing science but having looked at the details of the experiment a little closer, I would type the following.

" 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 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.

One name is offered for the authors, Osamah Nuwisser. I assume English was not his first language, as he uses terms such as 'For first task' in the section titled 'abstract,' and then the more correct 'For the first task,' in the introduction section. Maybe his shortfalls in his command of English, caused his mistaken use of 'almost' or perhaps, it was due to the words in the 'abstract' section; We accomplish two tasks: first we verified the conservation of total energy during single step of the movement of the glider over the ramp and then we compared total energy of several consecutive up and down motions to check whether the collision of glider with the bumper at the lower end of the ramp was elastic or inelastic.
Perhaps the results they/he got from the several consecutive up and down motions showed some small error bar style variations which caused him to use the word 'almost,' in the way he did.

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

Small ramp, so I assume the issues you mention are negligible for the experiment performed.

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

The coefficient of restitution (COR, also denoted by e), is the ratio of the final to initial relative speed between two objects after they collide. It normally ranges from 0 to 1 where 1 would be a perfectly elastic collision. A perfectly inelastic collision has a coefficient of 0, but a 0 value does not have to be perfectly inelastic. It is measured in the Leeb rebound hardness test, expressed as 1000 times the COR, but it is only a valid COR for the test, not as a universal COR for the material being tested.

The value is almost always less than 1 due to initial translational kinetic energy being lost to rotational kinetic energy, plastic deformation, and heat. It can be more than 1 if there is an energy gain during the collision from a chemical reaction, a reduction in rotational energy, or another internal energy decrease that contributes to the post-collision velocity.

So, it seems to me, the COR is only relevant to the issue of the collisions being elastic or inelastic.

Do you agree that the experiment completely supports what I've been arguing? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it suggests to me, that you need to consult a physicist, as to the academic details of the experiment my link provided. After you have done so, you can return here and report, whether or not the physicist agreed with the points you make about the experiment and the opinion you hold and present to others, that the conservation of energy laws are false.

I accept your viewpoint, but I find it unconvincing and akin to god of the gaps proposals.
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.'

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

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.

So, it seems to me, the COR is only relevant to the issue of the collisions being elastic or inelastic. — universeness

All I can say, is reread the article. The value of PE is simply stipulated to match the kinetic energy at the bottom of the drop. This sets the balance between potential energy and kinetic energy at zero. There is no experiment to prove that there is no energy loss in the drop, the value of PE is simply stipulated to match the value of KE (so there is no energy loss by the stipulated value of PE) Here's what's stated in the conclusion. "Also, we showed that by using the arbitrariness of the value of PE we can set the total energy of a sliding object to be zero". And here's what's stated in the section called Data and Analysis: "PE was defined to be zero on ground level."

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.

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

This is where the begging of the question occurs, in how the mgh (mass x gravitational constant x height) is set to zero. It is done by defining total energy (E) as KE-PE, and stipulating that E must be 0 at any height. This necessitates logically, that there is always a perfect conversion between PE and KE according to the law of conservation.

That makes the true value for PE ("true" meaning produced from the formula mgh) completely irrelevant, as PE can be set to zero for any height, simply by making it the inverse of the KE. Then, through the process you described, PE is made to be a function of the KE, as the negation of it in the statement of total energy, E=1/2mv(squared)-mgh. Therefore it is simply assumed that the PE is the direct inverse, (negation), of the KE, and vice versa, as per the law of conservation, regardless of any "true" determination of the PE according to the formula mgh. So the PE is calculated as a direct function of the KE, its inverse, in the formula used instead of mgh, and this is simply begging the question. The energy is necessarily conserved in the conversion of PE to KE, because the PE is calculated as the direct inverse of the KE.

Furthermore, this renders the entire experiment invalid because there is no way to separate, distinguish, energy loss during the conversion of PE to KE in the fall (and KE to PE in the rebound) from energy loss due to the inelasticity of the objects.

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

You do not produce high quality references universes. The experiment is completely invalid, and this one is even worse. Notice that they say this :

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.

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.

Furthermore, they dismiss energy loss due to air resistance as "a small amount of energy loss". Have you ever seen the physical damage that a 100kmh wind can cause? You can assure yourself that air resistance is not "a small amount of energy loss".

So we have two significant sources of energy loss in the cart example, friction and air resistance. These two can be reduced to one, in a free fall. We can say that air resistance is a type of friction. Further, we can say that this friction is a type of collision, the object collides with air molecules. Now, we might move on to more professional experiments, where the collision with air molecules is controlled for with vacuum.

Experimentation has been done within a vacuum for a long time now, and there is much discussion as to energy loss when a collision occurs in a vacuum. But, as in the simple experiment with the glider and the bumper, it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish energy loss in the simple motion of the object in its conversion of PE to KE, from energy loss due to the inelasticity of the colliding objects. The tendency is to assume that one is ideal, and attribute the energy loss to the other, as in the experiment, the conversion of PE to KE in the movement of the glider is assumed to be ideal, and energy loss is attributed to inelasticity. So the experiment can teach us something, that assuming the ideal can often produce misleading conclusions.

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.

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

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

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

And is your use of existence in "existent immaterial" pertaining to something material or something measurable? If existence means something material then again it is a conflict of terms. If it on the other hand means measurable, appreciable on an individual empirical basis (personal belief over communal fact) then the immaterial can indeed exist.

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

But cannot be made material and objectively discrete by material things. For if everything is an object, where does time, energy and space go? The negative fields that contrast the nature of the material.

So, they cannot be proven directly, only relatively - in relativistic relationship to the material. As Einstein proposed.

They must exist as the means by which material is acted on (cause being immaterial) and effect (material outcome being well... material).

Secondly, if some things are the most common things in existence, others are less so, a bit rarer, then it stands to reason that one thing is the rarest existent in the universe.
If it is so rare and singular that it cannot be replicated in measurement by different people, can we say it exists?

Most people would say no. It doesn't exist. If its measurement is not consistent then we cannot make it objective and constant between observers.

But herein lies a problem. If the rarest end of the scale of existents doesn't exist, the removing of that end of the scale of existents merely makes the next thing the most rare in its place, and if you remove that the next thing now assumes the rarest quality. An infinite régression of skeptcisim until all you have left to reckon with is yourself. Whether you exist. As descartes did.

This seems extremely reductive, therefore its likely that the rarest thing that cannot be made discrete, objective, constant, consistent, repeatable and material, does indeed exist despite that fact. And that simply put science is not a be all and end all tool for proof of it. Philosophy may be that which can argue for its existence where science cannot.

So, for me, that doesn't mean the rarest thing doesn't exist. It just means that science is not sufficient to prove it as science bases validity (existence) on repeatability/consistency.

But the rarest thing is not repeatable. Because its the rarest. Rarity being truly singular in nature. So I would say rare things are immaterial in nature from a material or scientific perspective whilst on the other hand common things are material as they are consistently measurable. Defined. Discrete. Objects.

It is a spectrum between the object (common), all the way through to the immaterial (uncommon), both of which exist by neccesity for one another.

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.

You might also suggest 'superposition,' where the same object can be in two places at once. — universeness

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

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

If everything in the universe is natural where does the term "supernatural" come from? I think it's merely a term required to approach that which we do not understand.. "we" being existents in the universe. The term "supernatural" and whatever it pertains to is a product of thr universe.

Energy, time and space are not immaterial. — universeness

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

The best use of that word is to indicate that which has no value, no importance, no significance — universeness

Well then my internal mind has no importance, value or significance to you. As the privacy of my inner thoughts must either not exist, or have 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.

So what say you of the mentalscapes of all people. Most of which have no physical existent to prove their private equivalent. Its not like all of my possible thoughts are automatically written and therefore empirically evident to others.

So in the case of ideas I haven't yet explained of mine, do they exist in the material, or are they immaterial - not accessible to others lest I explain them.

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.'

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.

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.

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

However, I will ask you just to take a quick look at one thing in the article. Look at the graph where they plot potential energy, kinetic energy, and total energy altogether on one graph. Now look at the plotted total energy over the first 1.5 seconds of time. This time period represents the first drop of the glider, prior to any collisions. You'll see that the total energy drops from approximately .9 joules to approximately .75 joules, over this time period. This is a loss of total energy of more than 15 percent, over a time period of 1.5 seconds, and that was prior to any collision.

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

Do you consider a total energy loss of 15 percent, in a 1.5 second time period to be negligible? That's ten percent per second of time! I really can't see how you would say that this is negligible.

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!

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

Look at the graph, and tell me how you would interpret that first 1.5 seconds in any other way than a total energy loss of approximately .15 joules, prior to any collision.

No, you have killed our exchange.

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

The so-called "insult" was warranted in response to this:

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

Come on universeness, if you think that air resistance and friction are negligible to a moving cart, you do not even have the most basic education in physics to even start discussing the law of conservation of energy.

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:

Yeah, neither do physicists who do physics experiments, according to you. — universeness

The problem with your referenced experiment remains. There is an initial energy loss of fifteen percent, which the experimenters refer to at one point as almost no energy loss, and at another point, no energy loss. You can call these experimenters "physicists" if it pleases you.

No, you have killed our exchange. — universeness

You have killed the exchange through denial of reality. I'll let you go off and build your car now, which requires virtually no energy input because friction and air resistance are negligible. Come back when you're ready to share the profit.

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.

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

Now how do you explain others passage of time? Their perception of it? A person in a coma for example who neither can point to space or time, and waking up many years from now has no recollection of the time that elapsed between their most recent memory and their waking state.

Can you say that your experience and their experience are both objective and unanimous? Or would there be conflict between your opinions of what has transpired?

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

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

Yes indeed. The waveform represents the possibilities between what you think/believe/have concepts for and what I do similarly, however all the while being unknown to one another. A sphere of potential argument, potential act. Potential consideration.

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. In that way we are entangled by the transfer of information. When we withold information from one another we are not entangled and left to our own devices (our separate waveforms of possible thoughts/potential/imagination).

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.

The waveform is creativity/ potential to be/ re-arrangement of previously known ideas to construct novelty.

The particle/particulate is that which you choose to explain your waveform - the words, discrete in meaning for each beholder. Your meaning and my meaning may be different so, it stands to reason that philosophy is very much about defining exactly what one means and minimising what another may infer through vaguery/difference in held meaning towards any given word/definition.

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

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.

They (these words and their meanings) are not outside of it (the universe) . Unless conscious beings that can hold such concepts have access to something extrinsic to the universe they inhabit.

"nothing" only has meaning "within" the universe as within the universe there is "something" - its opposite. True nothingness (without somethingness) is as impossible as light without darkness. True nothingness is incoherent from the bias of being something. As "nothingness" in the context of being "something" - is everything that it is not. Meaningless in respect to a biased assumption by an existent.

"meaningless" has meaning. Otherwise we could not use it as a word that holds any value/informativeness/meaning/comprehensibility. And all functional words have comprehension otherwise they would not be useful as words (a unit of communication).

Again "perfect" only has meaning in respect to the imperfect. If imperfection didn't exist then perfection would not exist. "God" is a heavily loaded term, meaning anything really depending on who you ask, but fundamentally it is that which one worships. And everyone worships something as of the utmost importance, everyone has something core that is more important than anything else - be it money, fame, power, beauty, knowledge, recognition, morality etc.

"immaterial" is that part of the universe that the material cannot define, cannot make discrete and apprehensible.

All these things no less exist. You can argue they don't, but that is just a singular opinion pretending to be a universal/ultimate one that no one can contest/apply logic to and argue.

Yet here I am, arguing it - Opposition to your current ultimate paradigm (most recent set of assumptions) as to what the reality of things are.

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?

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

The point is that energy loss is very real, whether you are looking at the Planck scale or at a scale of the entire universe. It is never "negligible" unless you are denying reality in support of a false principle