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!

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.

Energy loss is energy changing form. The total energy in the universe remains unchanged. — universeness

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.

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. — universeness

The issue is that the entropy of the universe increases. Universal entropy is said to be energy which is not accessible to us human beings. However, as I explained already, "energy" refers to what is calculated by us human beings, from our formulas. 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.

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. — universeness

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.

The burden of proof that it is a false law, remains with those, like you, who claim it is false. — universeness

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.

You have so far, provided no compelling evidence whatsoever. — universeness

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.

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!

An interesting OP by all accounts. We made an assumption (or is it a conclusion? Dunno) and you called us out on it. Fair enough. However, as far as I can tell, you offer a hypothesis but you know very well that's only ... you know ... half the story. Perhaps I conflate some key concepts but is it my fault or is it someone elses?

It feels as though adequacy is critical to solving this ancient mystery of mind-matter. What sayest thou?

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? — universeness

As I said, the quantity of energy is the product of a calculation derived from measurement and the application of formulae. In all experiments there is energy loss which cannot be accounted for with measurements and application of the formulae. Therefore we cannot conclude that this energy loss is the result of energy changing forms. That is an invalid conclusion. If the experimenters cannot show all the forms that all the energy exists in, they cannot conclude that it still exists in some form. The observations made simply do not support that conclusion.

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). — universeness

The experiment you referenced clearly shows energy loss which is not accounted for. If the experimenters claim that there was not any energy loss, when their data shows that there was, then they are lying and are not honest scientists.

There is no burden on me to show that there is energy loss which is not existing in another form, that is nonsensical. If I showed you where the energy loss existed, then it would be representable as a form of energy. I am not arguing that I can show you energy which does not exist as a form of energy. I am arguing that there is energy loss which the experimenters cannot account for as existing in another form. And, I am arguing that since "energy" is a product of human measurement and calculation, we have no premise whereby it can be concluded that the lost energy still exists as energy.

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! — universeness

The proof has been presented to you, you just haven't taken the time required to assess it. Go back to that graph in your referenced experiment. There is an energy loss of .15 joules in the first 1.5 seconds of the experiment which CANNOT be attributed to a change of energy form. To assign some other form to this energy would be purely conjecture, completely unsupported by the experiment. Therefore it CANNOT be validly attributed to a change of energy form.

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.

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.

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. — universeness

You've done mighty yeoman's work talking physical science to an incorrigible pseudo-scientist. :clap: :up:

Why are you so helpless 180? — Metaphysician Undercover

Pathetic dodge.

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_loss#:~:text=When%20energy%20is%20transformed%20from,form%20of%20energy%2C%20like%20heat.

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.

"Inductive conclusion?" :eyes: :roll:

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

Oh, I know how – your dogmatic idealist (anti-physical) misreading (disregard) of all of the extant observational and experimental warrants in favor of 'conservation laws' and 'the principle of causal closure' in modern physical science, and without a shred of experimental evidence to corroborate the single article, which others have shown you've misread, that you obstinantly hang your tin-foil hat upon. No doubt, sir, the Nobel Committee has you on its short list for the 2023 Physics Prize. :sweat:

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.

You have inspired me to make one further attempt to get through his foggy thinking! — universeness

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

@universeness, a valiant effort indeed, but sometimes the best thing on can do is to laugh and walk away.

@universeness, a valiant effort indeed, but sometimes the best thing on can do is to laugh and walk away. — Banno

:smirk: :up:

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.

...but his are not the only eyes in the readership of TPF. — universeness

I was a teacher for a while, and know well the compulsion to correct error.

I spent a few years interacting with MU, eventually to decide that, while he is not a troll, it is not worth responding.

Firstly even given quite astute and accurate explanations, he does not reconsider his position. Secondly drawing attention to his comments leads some folk into considering his arguments seriously, which is corrosive. This became clear in discussions of limits and instantaneous velocity, 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.

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

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

I never said anything about occult energy loss and I haven't the fainted idea what you are talking about. I've never before heard of "occult energy loss". Let;s stick to the facts. There is energy loss, as all experiments demonstrate. Do you or do you not agree with this conclusion derived from observation?

TAre 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. — universeness

Call it a "guesstimate" if you want, it's taken straight from the numbers on the graph. There is a drop of energy of approximately .15 joules prior to any collision, which is roughly 15 percent of the total energy of .9 joules. That the graph is unclear is the fault of the experimenters, not me. Whether the actual drop calculated by the experimenters was .13 joules, or .17 joules (hard to read on the graph) is irrelevant to the fact that the loss of energy prior to any collision was significant.

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. — universeness

The symmetry in the shape of the total energy after the collisions is produced from their way of figuring potential energy from that point onward. As we discussed already, this, what they call "arbitrary" way of figuring potential energy replaces the formula mgh with an inversion of the calculated kinetic energy. Because of this way of figuring the potential energy, it is impossible to distinguish energy loss due to inelasticity in the collision, and energy loss during movement of the glider. And, as is evident from the first 1.5 seconds, there is actually significant energy loss, just in the movement of the glider.

he does not reconsider his position. — Banno

This is false, I am always adapting and changing my position, depending on what is brought to my attention. It is the case though, that many people, such as universeness is this thread, never bring anything worthwhile to my attention and so I have nothing new to base a reconsideration on.

Cheers.

I never said anything about occult energy loss and I haven't the fainted idea what you are talking about — Metaphysician Undercover

I never said you said that (note where I put the quotation marks) and, of course, you "haven't the fainted idea what" I'm (or e.g. @universeness, @Banno, et al are) "talking about".

Right, you're talking about some sort of "occult" energy loss, universeness is trying to claim that scientific experiments have proven that all energy is conserved, and Banno is rambling some nonsense about instantaneous velocity. It's no wonder I haven't the faintest idea what you guys are talking about.

Maybe one of you could step forward and at least try to say something reasonable for a change?

We wouldn't need to say anytging more but maybe "thank you" to you if and when you deign to cite some scientific experiments which corrobrate your assertion that in modern physics "conservation laws are false".

We wouldn't need to say anytging more but maybe "thank you" to you if and when you deign to cite some scientific experiments which corrobrate your assertion that in modern physics "conservation laws are false". — 180 Proof

Isn't this argument circular?

Right, you're talking about some sort of "occult" energy loss, universeness is trying to claim that scientific experiments have proven that all energy is conserved, and Banno is rambling some nonsense about instantaneous velocity. It's no wonder I haven't the faintest idea what you guys are talking about.

Maybe one of you could step forward and at least try to say something reasonable for a change? — Metaphysician Undercover

:rofl:

As gentle as a lion can be, eh?

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?

What "argument"?

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. — universeness

As I said, after the first collision, at approximately 1.5 seconds, they started with the "arbitrary" figure for potential energy. Please reread the experiment, so that you might understand what they did. This replaces the gravitational formula for potential energy (mgh) with an inversion of the measured kinetic energy, i.e begging the question by assuming that all the energy is conserved.. You still haven't grasped this, after days of discussion. Or have you, and you're playing dumb? But why?

Look at the first 1.5 seconds please, where a true value for "h", height was provided, and the potential energy was figured from mgh, rather than from the assumption of a total energy of zero, and potential energy figured as the inverse of kinetic energy.

The rest of your post, concerning "tiny losses" is irrelevant, because it is based in your misunderstanding of how they used the "arbitrary" method to figure potential energy in the rebounds. This gave them no real indication of the amount of total energy actually lost during the up and down motion of the glider

Firstly even given quite astute and accurate explanations, he does not reconsider his position. Secondly drawing attention to his comments leads some folk into considering his arguments seriously, which is corrosive. This became clear in discussions of limits and instantaneous velocity, 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

Do you think that explaining to me some conventional principles of mathematics, which I obviously already have an understanding of, as I am arguing against them, gives me reason to accept them? I am sorry if it disappoints you, but you'll have to do better than this. Try giving me reasons to accept these principles, rather than just assertions that these are the accepted principles, and implying that because they are the accepted principles they must be true.

What "argument"? — 180 Proof

My bad, science is always trying to disprove itself and still its detractors are having such a tough time. How sad is that? You (antiscience brigade) can't even kill a guy (science) who's trying to perform hara kiri :lol:

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.

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.

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. — universeness

Get real universeness! Face the fact of the first 1.5 seconds of the experiment for me please. As recorded by the experimenters, and indicated on the graph, there is significant energy loss as the glider moves down the ramp. It's right there, in that first one and a half seconds, where potential energy figured from mgh, using a true representation of the height differences of the actual system, was compared with kinetic energy observed at the point of collision.

That the negative value of PE annihilates the positive value of KE, so that the total energy remains zero, is an absolute fabrication (a complete falsity), produced by the "arbitrary" way that they figured the potential energy of the system, from the point of the first collision onward. They replaced mgh with an inversion of KE, assuming total energy conservation. They made no more actual measurements of height to determine mgh, and a true PE at the apex of each rebound, they made all their calculations based on PE being an inverse of KE hence the designation that PE annihilates KE as an exact equality, and the total energy remaining at zero, as dictated by the law of conservation.

Furthermore, there is inconsistency in your reference to the Britannica article which demonstrates exactly what I've been telling you. The point which you repeatedly ignore. You imply that the same system could have different quantities of gravitational potential energy, depending on how the PE is figured, yet you also state "potential energy is a property of a system". If the quantity of PE within a system at any particular time, can vary, depending on the method used to calculate it, then we cannot say that it is a property of the system. It is, as I've been repeating to you, something determined by calculation. This is a fundamental principle which I keep repeating to you, which you continually ignore, and refuse to acknowledge.

The reality of this inconsistency can be demonstrated with your quoted statement:
"the system would have twice as much potential energy if the initial position were the bottom of a 10-foot-deep hole." Tha fact is, that this would not be the same system because having different initial positions means being a different system. Having the initial position at the top of a ten-foot-deep hole, or having the initial position at the bottom of a ten-foot-deep hole makes two very distinct systems in reality. These two representations cannot be said to be representations of "the same system".

So, if it is true that you can figure the gravitational PE for the very same physical system, in two very distinct "arbitrary" ways (as if they are two very distinct systems with two distinct initial positions), coming up with completely different values for the gravitational PE, and each of these distinct values may be considered a correct representation of that one system, then it is clearly false that "potential energy is a property of a system". The PE is a product of the calculation, and the fact that the very same system can have completely different 'correct' values for PE, demonstrates this very clearly.

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. 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.


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.

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.

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.