## Dualism and the conservation of energy

189101112Next
• 10.6k
Taking a measurement is an 'instantaneous' snapshot of the system properties at that moment.

This is false. Despite what Banno claims, velocity is always the product of an average from at least two measurements of position and calculated over the time difference. Velocity cannot be derived from a snapshot of the system at a moment. And, since energy is a function of the movement of the system, it is as I've been telling you, the product of a calculation from the application of formulae. It is never directly measured.

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.

OK, let's take your guesstimate then that's still at least ten percent of the total energy, a very significant energy loss. in the first 1.5 seconds of time. Do you see that this energy loss, of the system, prior to any collision, is at least ten percent? How can you insist on conservation when you know this is true?

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.

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.

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. The use of mgh as the formula to figure the potential gravity is replaced with a formula which matches potential energy to kinetic energy, as an equal conversion without ant energy loss. Therefore all this energy loss is completely ignored.

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.

Well, all this means is that there is more unaccounted for energy loss which we haven't addressed yet. The initial potential energy (and total energy because that's all the system has at the beginning) is .9 joules. If the kinetic energy only reaches .6 joules, and the potential energy can be seen to be at .1 at this time, this indicates a total energy loss, prior to any collision, of .2 joules, more than twenty percent.

I suggest that the graph is very poorly drawn, not clearly showing total energy. But, we can see clearly that at 1.5 seconds there is .6 joules of kinetic energy and .1 joules of potential energy, for a total of .7 joules. This means that prior to any collision, there was a total energy loss to the system of over twenty percent.

This experiment clearly demonstrates that energy is conserved in this system.

Now, you've exposed the fact that the true energy loss of the system, prior to any collision was actually more than twenty percent. Let's look at the facts. Initial energy, as potential energy (mgh) was .9 joules. Kinetic energy at the time just prior to the first collision was .6 joules. Potential energy at this time was .1 joules. Do we agree with this reading of the graph? Do you see that this means an initial loss of total energy of .2 joules, prior to any collision?

This experiment clearly demonstrates that energy is conserved in this system.

That's a very strange conclusion. The experiment shows an energy loss to the system of more than twenty percent in the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy in the initial dropping of the glider. And you conclude "This experiment clearly demonstrates that energy is conserved in this system."!!!???
• 3.5k
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.

No because the 0.1 joules of energy was not lost, it was converted to other energy types.

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.

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.

Do we agree with this reading of the graph?

No, 0.9 and 1 are your guesstimates and are not confirmed. There is some error present in the measurements due to the nature of the universe and the measuring tools we have but the overwhelming evidence from the experiment is that the TOTAL energy of the system is conserved.

That's a very strange conclusion.

It's called science! There is no woo woo here, despite your refusal to reveal what becomes of this non-existent occult(hidden) energy you insist this experiment exemplifies.
• 10.6k
No because the 0.1 joules of energy was not lost, it was converted to other energy types.

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.

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.

You are not addressing the issue universeness. The graph shows .9 joules of potential energy, and .9 joules of total energy at the initial position. Kinetic energy is zero. This means all the energy at that point is potential energy. Then the glider moves, and reaches a maximum kinetic energy of .6 joules. Since this is the maximum kinetic energy, it is prior to the first collision. The glider has not slowed down yet. At this time, the potential energy is .1 joules. So, the total energy at this time, just prior to the first collision, is .7 joules. Therefore we can conclude that a total energy loss of .2 joules occurred prior to any collisions. That is a very significant energy loss to the system.
• 3.5k
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.

Your point then is merely about the definition of 'a closed system.'
From Wiki:
A closed system is a natural physical system that does not allow transfer of matter in or out of the system, although — in contexts such as physics, chemistry or engineering — the transfer of energy (e.g. as work or heat) is allowed.

Pay careful attention to the 'although' part. The 0.1 joules convertion to other forms of energy IS therefore considered part of 'the system.'

The graph shows .9 joules of potential energy, and .9 joules of total energy at the initial position.
Not confirmed but I agree it looks pretty close to 0.9 joules on the poorly detailed graph offered in the experiment.
As I drilled down a little further into the data provided in the experiment I tried to consider where a 0.9 value for total energy could come from based on the formula used and the data offered.
I could not get to a total energy of 0.9 joules using the height (position) graph and the velocity graph.
At v=0 the glider is at rest so KE=0.
If the height of the glider is 1m as suggested at the start of the first graph then mg(1) = total energy.
or mg=0.9 joules. this means the mass of the glider would have to be 0.0918 and no such tiny glider mass is given in the table containing three glider masses.
So, I am obviously misunderstanding the data presented. I don't see the m, and h (v is 0) (g is 9.8) data that produces the guesstimated 0.9 joules value at the beginning of a run of the experiment. Can you?
I would need to find experimental results offering a clearer data set.
There is no point continuing to debate with you about a guesstimated quantity of energy loss in the first 1.5 second that I can't confirm or deny using the data provided in the experiment I linked to.
My position on conservation of energy remains solid but if I have time, I will look for a better data set.
Perhaps you should do the same, as I don't see why I should do all the search work.
I have old physics textbooks from uni, perhaps I will look in those.
• 3.5k

You may find this discussion on the physics stack exchange, exemplifies the argument between folks on the conservation of energy issue:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98066/experimental-proof-for-conservation-of-total-energy
• 10.6k

I hope you read that well, and understand some simple principles. First, what they stated at the beginning, the issue with an "isolated system". This is what Banno stated earlier, that energy is conserved in a "closed system". However like those at the stack exchange, 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.

The next principle I'd like you to try and understand is a bit more subtle, and more difficult to grasp. This is the variability in the method employed by physicists to figure the value of "energy" in any particular system. Remember in the experiment you linked, how they explained the "arbitrary" method of figuring potential energy. They said that there was freedom to choose the value for either height, or mass, for the purpose of facilitating their calculations.

So when the stack exchange discussion proceeds into a discussion of the symmetries produced by The Standard Model of particle physics we must be very wary of this fact. And if you make a closer analysis of the procedures in particle physics I suggest that you will find that physicists "arbitrarily" assign, and adjust the designated mass of a particle, in a way which maintains consistency with the law of conservation. In other words, they have no real way to measure the mass of a fundamental particle, they simply assign a mass to it according to what the law of conservation dictates it ought to be. As demonstrated by how the experimenters assigned a value for height in the linked experiment. And so the designated "mass" of fundamental particles is always being altered and adjusted depending on the outcomes of various experiments.

You should notice therefore, that when the participants in the stack exchange discussion turn to particle physics as proof of the validity of the law of conservation, there is no real proof here at all. What happens in particle physics, is that instead of measuring things like the height and the weight of the object, like in your simple experiment, the amount of energy is determined by other means. Then, from this determination of the amount of energy, and the application of the law of conservation (as demonstrated in the "arbitrary" method of determining PE), the mass of the particle is determined. And, of course it will appear like particle physics validates the law of conservation, because the designated mass of a particle is produced by applying that conservation law. That's the begging of the question which I told you about.

To understand this better, look into the difference between "rest mass" (invariant mass), and "relativistic mass" (calculated from the energy of the system). You'll find out for instance, that a photon must have zero "rest mass" but at the same time it is impossible that a photon has zero "relativistic mass". This is due to the falsity of the conservation law, and the need to adjust the "mass" of the particle to be consistent with the calculated energy of the system, when the energy level is determined by a means other than mass and velocity.

www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
• 3.5k
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.

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.

Energy being conserved means it does not spawn out of nothing nor disappear into nothing. If it is going out due to wasteful/resistive forces, then while we may not know where it went, we know it still exists in the same quantity. Thus 100% conservation

If you are $100 dollars short of being a millionaire because you just can't find the missing$100, it's not that you don't own the $100, it's just 'hidden' for now then I think that's a very poor reason for no longer calling yourself a millionaire. You're reasoning for calling the conservation of energy law false or untrue is ridiculous in my opinion. 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. • 10.6k 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. 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. 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. You told me this much earlier in the thread, and I explained to you exactly why "false" is a better word. Countless scientific experiments have demonstrated that energy loss is very real, and not one has ever demonstrated conservation. And so conservation does not correspond with fact. It is a very useful principle, but it is simply wrong because it is not consistent with what scientific experiments have demonstrated as the truth about this matter. And it is not a matter of the principle of conservation being "imperfect", or "incomplete" because as I told you last time, it is the exact opposite of this. 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. • 3.5k 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. Right back at you. You should stare into a mirror and repeat the words above to yourself again and again. Perhaps your fog will then lift. You told me this much earlier in the thread, and I explained to you exactly why "false" is a better word. Well, you tried to, but you failed miserably, as your logic is badly flawed and you just repeat your flawed logic without tackling any counter points made or offering any evidence to support your position. You repeat silly, extreme words such as 'false' and 'untrue' for conservation of energy and I think that's the rock your viewpoint dies on. 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. This exemplifies your 'silly' viewpoint imo. I have never heard a physicist expound the law of conservation of energy as a 'perfect law.' If they did then I would argue against them. Most or all physicists would reject the word perfect. Most would probably call the conservation of energy law 'complete,' yes, as most are convinced by the proposition that any 'missing' energy is simply changed into other forms. Like that millionaire I mentioned, still looking for his missing$100.
• 10.6k
• 3.5k

I thought you might consider this quite balanced viewpoint (imo), from Victor Tosh, helpful.

Question posed: The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed - only transferred. Could this immutable scientific law be applied to the Big Bang with formless energy crossing a space-time event horizon to create our cosmos?

Victor's response:
Laws are meant to be broken. Scientific laws are not immutable pronouncements by some deity, but descriptions of Nature that are found to be valid under a wide range of circumstances but are subjects to testing and modification, if necessary.

The first law of thermodynamics, one of the axioms in the axiomatic formulation of thermodynamics, is no exception. It is not some sacred commandment. It is part of the description of the thermodynamic behavior of matter that we see within this universe.

But we have since done better than simply postulating ad hoc axioms. We have a beautiful theorem, Noether’s theorem, that basically amounts to the statement that if a physical theory is invariant under certain mathematical transformations, the result is a conserved quantity. Very specifically, if a physical theory remains the same under time translation (that is, if the laws of physics are the same today as they were yesterday and will remain the same tomorrow) the result is energy conservation. This, combined with the statistical behavior of large numbers of particles, together let us derive the laws of thermodynamics, as they apply to physical systems within this universe.

I emphasized the expression, “within this universe”. None of this tells us anything about the beginning of the universe. (It certainly wasn’t “formless energy” — whatever that means — and no “space-time event horizon” was involved either, and least none that we know about. It may have involved a so-called initial singularity — at least that’s what general relativity tells us — but don’t take that for granted either, since we have no reason to believe that general relativity paints a valid picture of the extreme early universe, when unknown quantum effects of gravitation may have played an oversize role.)

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.
189101112Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal