Do you think someone prior to understanding the notion of kinetic energy would see kinetic energy when they looked at moving objects?
I read someone in the previous posts said that Hume opposed to Newtonian Science?
If Hume had been arguing against Newton, he would have been written off as a loony, rather than being as respected as he was in his time.
How could principles of natural science be applied for study of mental workings of human nature?
Sorry but the link wouldn't let me download the document because my ipad had no MS Word.
Well, all I can say is that your hypothesis is falsified
I would say instead that the idea of the energy of the balls is conveyed in the speed of their movement and the sound of their striking one another, and is not directly seen at all but felt in the body. In other words it is misleading to speak of it as a visual phenomenon when it is equally an auditory phenomenon and it consists mostly in an associative somatic response.
The kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. This is rather standard definition. If you see an object in motion, you can see that it has kinetic energy. When you see that object strike another object, it slows down or stops and the other object (if its inertial energy is small enough to be overcome by the transfer of kinetic energy) will begin to move. — Ron Cram
It looks like a body in motion. If you see a body in motion, then you are looking at a body that has kinetic energy. it really is that simple. — Ron Cram
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.