Taking a measurement is an 'instantaneous' snapshot of the system properties at that moment. — universeness

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. — universeness

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. — 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.

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. — universeness

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. — universeness

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. — universeness

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."!!!???

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

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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? — Metaphysician Undercover

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

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

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

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.

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

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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 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. — universeness

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.

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

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

...

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.

Check out Lee Smolin's "Time Reborn". He is a PHD physicist and he provides a good explanation as to why we ought not think of the laws of physics as timelessly invariant.

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 fault which makes me say "false" is not that the law is an approximation, or imperfect. The fault which leads to the accusation of "false" is in the way that the law is represented, and applied, as timelessly invariant.

So, the issue is that we as human beings occupy an extremely limited spatial perspective, and also an extremely limited temporal perspective. Our range of possible observations (possible to us) is very small in relation to the broad temporal spatial extent of the universe. We do experimentation in this narrow range of observational capacity and produce our laws from this.

Now, the observations do not match the laws perfectly, as you say, and there is some slight variance, even within our small range of observational capacity. Yet we extrapolate from these laws to the wider universe applying the laws as if they are perfect representations. in this mode of extrapolation. In this mode of extrapolation, we cannot adjust for the imperfections, the variances, because we do not know the causes of them.

Here's a simplified example. 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. But since we have nothing to apply in making that extrapolation, except that law, we'd proceed and produce conclusions about that time period of a million years, which would be completely wrong. And we'd have no way to make adjustments for that margin of error within the law, because if we could do that we would know the cause of the error, and we'd simply write the law in a way to eliminate the error.

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 margin of error is a percentage. If it is correct, it will still be 0.01% after a million years.

Glucose + O₂ $\to$ Thoughts + CO₂ + H₂O

Let's take a concrete example.

Material event A is the light from my computer screen with this page open, hitting my retinas, and going through visual processing. The immaterial event B is my mental processing on what I just read. The material event C is me moving my fingers to type a response.

Now let's break down event C more. In order to hit the L button (the first in my comment) my ring finger needs to move a specific way. Let's call the movement of my ring finger to type L, event C1 (material). Now let's take event C2 to be whatever caused my finger to move that specific way. Let C3 be whatever caused C2 and so on, where event Cn is caused by event Cn+1.

Your hypothesis is that B will be in this chain of events, that it will cause Cm for some m, where Cm is a material event.

Now let's take this Cm, we know it causes Cm-1, and that Cm-1 causes Cm-2, etc, until C1 which results in typing the letter L. We also know this entire chain is material events which obey conservation of energy, no problem there.

However the step from B to Cm is the problematic one. A physical event has to envolve some sort of change of energy correct? For example, a few atoms existing in vacuum in complete stillness is clearly not a physical event, a movement (kinetic) or heating up (thermal) would be though.

So to say B caused Cm means that B must have caused some sort of energy change, and THAT is the part that contradicts conservation of energy. For a mental event to cause a change of energy is nothing short of telekinesis.

An analogy would be: Cm is the first in a line of dominos, C1 is the last domino, and B is what topples Cm. If B is non physical, that means that energy was added to Cm without any physical source. That contradicts conservation of energy.

The energy is transferred from A to C 'by' B. — Bartricks

How would this work exactly? The way I understand it is for a system that has 10 joules of energy, A happens, and now it has 7, then B happens and it still has 7, then C happens and it has 10 again. So unless B takes 0s of time, then there are two different times where conservation of energy is violated here, the start of B, and the start of C. And we know mental events take more than 0s of time.

The relevant issue is the applicability of the law. Application demonstrates a degree of error, the cause of which is not accounted for. Since it's not accounted for, we do not understand it. If the activity described by the law, which the law is applied to changes over time ,then the margin of error, and the applicability of the law would also change over time. That is what Smolin deals with in "Time Reborn". He calls it "the evolution of laws", and he uses the concept to support his theory of "cosmological natural selection". Other relevant concepts include quantum gravity, anthropic principle, variability in the mass of fundamental particles, and of course expansion with dark energy.

The significant feature here, which is very relevant to the discussion on conservation of energy is expansion, and the need to posit dark energy. The need to assume "dark energy" in cosmology demonstrates that the traditional concept of "energy" (its quantity dictated by human calculations) along with the proposed conservation of this energy, cannot account for all the 'real' energy in the universe.
https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-energy-emerges-when-energy-conservation-is-violated/

If, as the article claims, the concept of dark energy is the product of the violation of conservation, then we can see that at earlier times in the universe, when expansion appears to be faster, what is really the case is that conservation is less applicable. The crux here is the real degree of invariance of mass of the electron. It is assumed that the electron has a constant rest mass. But an electron is not at rest, and can be induced to a high speed. And the electron is the common means by which we relate the massless (immaterial) photons to the massive (material) particles.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.0225

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.

But you are aware of this, as evidenced by your introducing quantum rhetoric - a sure sign of an attempt to escape by bullshiting.

:up:

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

You seem to have difficulty understanding that what I have provided is good reasons to reject the mathematics of invariance. I have no doubt that the mathematics of invariance produces the invariant conclusion you claim. The issue is whether this mathematics produces a good representation of reality.

The existence of error, no matter how it is expressed in percentage, or whatever, indicates that invariance is a false representation. Your conclusion relies on the mathematics of invariance, and what I explained is why we ought to reject such mathematics of invariance because it provides a false representation as demonstrated by the existence of error. This is what is explained by Dr. Smolin in the referenced book. So you have not given anything relevant in your appeal to invariant mathematics, only the assertion that the application of invariant mathematics provides a conclusion based in invariant principles. That's useless toward the topic of discussion, which is whether invariance is a true representation of reality.

You need to address the issue, and explain why you believe that invariance provides us with a realistic representation. I have explained why we ought to reject such invariance as unrealistic. Now if you do not accept this, show why, or show how, invariance is a better representation. But simply stating the principles of invariant mathematics does nothing for you.

Let me see if I can help you two to understand the principle. It's quite simple really. The idea is that the laws of physics which we use are only accurate when applied to what is immediately present to us, the here and now. That is all that is observable to us, and all that these laws are tested on. The principle is that the further we project away from the immediate here and now, the less applicable the laws are, due to a changing, or evolving universe.. That this evolving universe idea describes the true nature of reality is supported by the concept of expansion of space, and the need to posit dark energy.

So in the example I gave, 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. The error of .01 percent over ten years, represents the rate of change that the universe is undergoing, away from the applicability of that law.

:eyes: :roll:

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

That's just wrong. Quantum Electrodynamics is not about everyday stuff, but measures the fine-structure constant to ten decimal places.

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

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.

This is the sort of stuff that leads one to ignore your posts.

:100: :up:

That's just wrong. Quantum Electrodynamics is not about everyday stuff, but measures the fine-structure constant to ten decimal places. — Banno

This only demonstrates that you misunderstand Quantum Electrodynamics. The principles are established through observation, and the measurements you refer to, are simply an act of applying the principles. I went through this already, a number of times in this thread, because it seems really difficult for some people here to understand.

Energy is not ever directly measured. Measurements are made, and then the quantity of energy is calculated through the application of formulae to the measurements. So any supposed measurement, which is made in terms of energy (like what you suggest), is a theory laden calculation, and not a direct measurement at all. The amount of energy is calculated through application of the formulae, and the supposed measurement is a conclusion from the calculation.

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

You still don't understand. The error is in the formula through which the extrapolation is made, not in the initial measurement. That extrapolation is based in the assumption of invariance. And the assumption of invariance is the error. 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. That's basically Newton's first law, the law of inertia, and that law is an expression of this error, the error of assuming that invariance is the natural condition of passing time.

The reality is that the simple passing of time will cause change, as if the passing of time were itself a force. And this we know from the concepts of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics, as well as spatial expansion. Invariance is a myth, a falsity. Though it is a useful principle, it is a falsity if presented as a representation of reality.

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

So, are you suggesting that the expansion of space over time, directly affects the local measurement of 22 cm of paper?
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.

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

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.

So, are you suggesting that the expansion of space over time, directly affects the local measurement of 22 cm of paper? — universeness

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.

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

This is what I am saying is false, this sort of invariance. Banno says:

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. 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".

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

Right back at you, if you knew a little more about such concepts, you would agree that your thinking here is 'wrong headed.'
I repeat:

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

You totally ignore the issue of the arbitrariness of "mass" which I already explained to you. The value for mass is assigned to objects in a way to maintain consistency with theories of energy, just like the value for height was assigned in the glider experiment, in a way to maintain consistency with the conservation law, therefore it was a matter of begging the question. The idea that galaxies are "gravitationally bound", and expansion only occurs in intergalactic space, is just a convention meant to facilitate calculation. A massive object is assigned a centre of gravity, and the space within an object is not understood to be expanding, because that would make traditional concepts for representing the interactions of objects (like Newton's first law, inertial mass, etc.) inapplicable, wrong.

But the problems which arise from this conventional way of figuring mass and gravitation, demonstrated by the need for things like dark energy and dark matter, indicate that this conventional way of determining mass and gravitation is fundamentally incorrect. The incorrectness is very intuitive, because we know that objects consist of parts which are separated by space, 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. This is why your statement, and reference to things which are "gravitationally bound", demonstrates you have little understanding of the issue. Take a look at quantum gravity:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-gravitys-quantum-origins-explain-dark-energy/
https://www.space.com/loop-quantum-gravity-space-time-quantized.

A quantum theory for gravity is hotly debated in the physics community right now.

. 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.

If this is where you are in your musings then we are just too far apart to be able to establish effective communications. — universeness

I knew this way back when we first engaged. You simply refused to accept and discuss the reality of the situation, opting instead to insist on the truth of some ideal.

We need to address the issue of how the ideals which are employed diverge from the reality which they are supposed to be modeling, if we want to progress in any true understanding of reality. Simply insisting that the model is a true representation, when the observations clearly demonstrate otherwise, is a pointless venture.