Taking a measurement is an 'instantaneous' snapshot of the system properties at that moment. — universeness
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. — universeness
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. — universeness
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. — universeness
This experiment clearly demonstrates that energy is conserved in this system. — universeness
This experiment clearly demonstrates that energy is conserved in this system. — universeness
This is completely irrelevant. The formula they used is clearly stated as mgh (mass time gravitational constant times height), which is the formula for gravitational potential energy. All that energy lost in the first second and a half of time must be lost in the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy, in the falling of the glider. — Metaphysician Undercover
Then, after the first collision, this significant energy loss (at least ten percent in the first 1.5 seconds of the experiment) which has been demonstrated to be occurring in the free movement of the glider is completely dismissed, and ignored in the later part of the experiment. — Metaphysician Undercover
Do we agree with this reading of the graph? — Metaphysician Undercover
That's a very strange conclusion. — Metaphysician Undercover
No because the 0.1 joules of energy was not lost, it was converted to other energy types. — universeness
No, the total energy of the system after the first collision is shown and the error bar in measurement is shown in the small curved broken line. Again, no energy is lost, a tiny amount is converted to other forms. Total energy is conserved. — universeness
We are talking about "the system". The energy is lost to the system. That all the energy could be accounted for by measurements of things other than the system is pure speculation. And this has never been proven because to measure it is to bring it into "the system", and all systems have been observed to lose energy. So in reality, this hypothesis that all the energy could be accounted for with other measurements, has actually been disproven. That's the point I am arguing, 100% of the energy has never been accounted for, ever, in any experiment, and that's why the law of conservation has been proven to be false. — Metaphysician Undercover
Not confirmed but I agree it looks pretty close to 0.9 joules on the poorly detailed graph offered in the experiment.The graph shows .9 joules of potential energy, and .9 joules of total energy at the initial position. — Metaphysician Undercover
I argued that in reality there is no such thing as a "closed" or "isolated" system. So this idea is a fiction, an imaginary scenario, created by human minds, as the scenario in which the law of conservation would be true. But since there is no such scenario in reality, the law of conservation is not true. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, you did, and this is due to your own misunderstanding of the complexities of the physics involved.
I found the points made by those who fully accept the conservation laws in the physics stack exchange much more compelling than those, like you, who dissented. — universeness
I think you should perhaps start using terms like 'imperfect' or even 'incomplete' as opposed to 'false' or 'untrue,' when offering your interpretation of conservation of energy. You might be taken more seriously by doing so. — universeness
I find that very easy to believe, because you've demonstrated over and over again that you are extremely biased in your approach, and you either willing deny, or completely misunderstand what is written by the experimenters you yourself referenced. — Metaphysician Undercover
You told me this much earlier in the thread, and I explained to you exactly why "false" is a better word. — Metaphysician Undercover
The law of conservation states something perfect and complete, conservation, when experiments show that in reality things are not perfect and complete, in the way that this principle states. So it is an ideal which does not take into account the reality of the imperfections which actually exist in the world. Therefore it's simply false, like any other Utopian ideal. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think the opinion that the conservation laws are not prefect is a rational sound landing zone, but typing that they are false or untrue, leaves you skidding all over the place or leaves you like that millionaire, who rejects the label, as they can only absolutely account for $999,900. — universeness
The margin of error is a percentage. If it is correct, it will still be 0.01% after a million years.Suppose some experimentation is carried out over ten years, and it proves to have a relatively insignificant margin of error of .01 percent, and we produce a law based on this. If we extrapolate from ten years to a million years, then the margin of error might be multiplied 100,000 times. The law becomes useless. — Metaphysician Undercover
The energy is transferred from A to C 'by' B. — Bartricks
The relevant issue is the applicability of the law. — Metaphysician Undercover
No. The relevant issue is that again you have shown that you do not grasp the maths. 1% of ten is not a smaller fraction than 1% of a million. — Banno
The idea is that the laws of physics which we use are only accurate when applied to what is immediately present to us — Metaphysician Undercover
if in ten years time, we lose .01 percent accuracy in a specific law (the particular number used is just an arbitrary example), then over a million years that error is multiplied by 100,000 times. — Metaphysician Undercover
That's just wrong. Quantum Electrodynamics is not about everyday stuff, but measures the fine-structure constant to ten decimal places. — Banno
As if accuracy were cumulative; as if, when I measure a piece of paper as being 22±0.1cm, somehow the error will grow such that after a week it's 22±0.7cm This is just wrong-headed. — Banno
So for example, if your paper is measured at 22 cm, the error is in the assumption that it will continue to be 22 cm through an indefinite period of time, if it is not acted upon by a force which would change it. — Metaphysician Undercover
Invariance is a myth, a falsity. Though it is a useful principle, it is a falsity if presented as a representation of reality. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, it doesn't affect the measurement, that's done here and now. I am saying that the feature of reality which we know as expansion, will affect the paper if it exists for a long period of time.So, are you suggesting that the expansion of space over time, directly affects the local measurement of 22 cm of paper? — universeness
A 22cm measurement would have been the same 10 billion years ago and it will be the same 10 billion years from now. The measurement is invariant and is not affected by the expansion of the universe. — universeness
But if you knew a little more about these concepts, like spatial expansion, and dark energy, you'd see that this type of thinking is not wrong headed at all, it is well justified. Take a look at the article I linked to above, concerning dark energy. Though it is stated that the proposed solution is most likely incorrect, the stated problem, that expansion is accelerating, is very real. Issues such as this demonstrate that invariance is what is really "wrong-headed".This is just wrong-headed. — Banno
But if you knew a little more about these concepts, like spatial expansion, and dark energy, you'd see that this type of thinking is not wrong headed at all, it is well justified. — Metaphysician Undercover
Galaxy structures are not expanding they are locally gravitationally bound, so, from that standpoint, their 'size' is invariant over time and will remain so unless they are acted upon by an external force such as a collision with another galaxy. — universeness
. The idea that galaxies are "gravitationally bound", and expansion only occurs in intergalactic space, is just a convention meant to facilitate calculation. — Metaphysician Undercover
so it would be very inaccurate to assign a centre of gravity to a large object, simply ignoring all the distinct parts, and therefore not assigning a separate centre of gravity to each part. — Metaphysician Undercover
If this is where you are in your musings then we are just too far apart to be able to establish effective communications. — 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.