I did not appreciate how fogged your thinking was at the beginning of our exchange, even after the kind 'heads up' I received from both @Banno and @180 Proof. You seemed to be open to reason but as our exchange continued, you clearly demonstrated that you choose to refuse the label 'Wall,' because a couple of bricks are missing. This is particularly silly when very valid statements of what may have happened to the missing couple of bricks, are available.
I am a big fan of sceptics, of many levels of intensity, but not extremists like you. Anyone who calls the conservation of energy law 'false' or 'untrue' is not an intellect to be respected. It's a pity you choose to role play sensationalism, using Jordan Peterson style sophistry.

Science via scientists will always strive to improve any shortfalls or imperfections apparent in the very dependable current laws of physics which continue to demonstrate robust predictive power.
I predict your viewpoints on the conservation laws will remain mostly ignored and ridiculed.
Meantime, I will continue to listen to the real physicists regarding the laws of physics and continue to read posts from sensationalists like yourself, as a form of curio and entertainment.

Bravo.

:clap: :cool:

Cheers guys. I should have heeded your advice a little more. Perhaps some of those missing bricks are caused by me bashing my head against the wall pointlessly sometimes!

Science via scientists will always strive to improve any shortfalls or imperfections apparent in the very dependable current laws of physics which continue to demonstrate robust predictive power.
I predict your viewpoints on the conservation laws will remain mostly ignored and ridiculed.
Meantime, I will continue to listen to the real physicists regarding the laws of physics and continue to read posts from sensationalists like yourself, as a form of curio and entertainment. — universeness

Actually, contrary to your personal prediction, there is a growing movement in this direction already. It's sometimes referred to as the quest for a "Theory of Everything", and it is required because of the inconsistency between the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of general relativity. So your prediction has actually been proven wrong already.

That's why I gave the reference to physicist Lee Smolin, and further information on quantum gravity. But even with "real" physicists disputing your views, all you can say is that quantum gravity is "hotly debated", and "we are just too far apart to be able to establish effective communications". Yes, we are far apart, because you would not even consider the enormous problem of modeling a conglomeration of massive objects like a galaxy, as having a centre of gravity. You will never move on toward discussing possible solutions when you deny the problem. And it is your insistent denial of the problem which leaves us "too far apart" for effective discourse.

Of course, the reasons for these new theories, which I've pointed you toward, are the shortfalls of the current laws, which lead to occult concepts like dark energy and dark matter. These are the shortfalls in the predictive power, due to the falsity which you deny and refuse to acknowledge. Your claim of "robust predictive power" is what is ridiculous. As reflected by your personal prediction made above, which has already been proven wrong, your idea of successful prediction is sorely deficient. Ignore and deny any evidence which is inconsistent with the prediction, and deem the predictive power as robust.

Actually, contrary to your personal prediction, there is a growing movement in this direction already. It's sometimes referred to as the quest for a "Theory of Everything", and it is required because of the inconsistency between the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of general relativity. So your prediction has actually been proven wrong already. — Metaphysician Undercover

Utter nonsense! Humans have been craving a T.O.E since they realised they could think. Science and scientists simply reflect that human compulsion.

Lee Smolin is a great contributer to the physics and the human community. I will leave it to him to dispute your sophisticated, skewed interpretations of his work.

Lee Smolin is a great contributer to the physics and the human community. I will leave it to him to dispute your sophisticated, skewed interpretations of his work. — universeness

Good, summon him up, I would appreciate that greatly.

You are one lazy meta!
Try lsmolinatperimeterinstitutedotca

I've tried that route, but maybe we could have greater success in combination.

I've tried that route, but maybe we could have greater success in combination. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you mean he did not think your attempt to communicate with him was worth responding to?

I really don't know, and I'm not inclined to make any judgement on that. Why don't you ask him?

I sent the following email, to the address I posted above, after my previous response to you.
I don't know why I seem to have represented you in the plural rather than the singular in the message shown below.
If he did not answer you, he probably will not answer me.
Busy people I'm sure but its always worth a try.
If he responds, I will post it here.

Hello Sir,

I am currently having online discussions with some folks who posit that the conservation of energy law is untrue or false due to their claim, that experiments show some energy is lost and that loss is not satisfactorily accounted for. I would really appreciate your opinion on any such shortfall you think exists in the conservation of energy law.

My position is that it is ‘sensationalist’ to suggest that the conservation laws are ‘untrue’ or ‘false’ due to any inference of ‘missing energy’ made by those I am debating with. To me, its like they are refusing to accept the label ‘wall’ because two bricks are missing from it. Could you give a brief response, if you can find the time to?

:up:
By the way, the wall analogy is not accurate because a "wall" missing a few bricks is still a "wall", but missing a few from "conservation" is not "conservation". And since there is not conservation, the law is false. And it's not a matter of seeking the missing energy, the ideal is not reality. So the thing which appears to you like it is a wall, is actually not a wall at all, because we can walk right through it. You can't stop thinking that it's a wall, and you don't believe in ghosts, so your recourse is to deny the obvious. Keep calling it a "wall", or "conservation", when it is not.

Keep calling it a "wall", or "conservation", when it is not. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok, thanks for your permission. :lol:

Here's why your wall analogy fails badly. A wall is a physical object, while the law of conservation is an abstract principle, a concept. Various physical objects will be called by the same name, ("wall" in this case), despite all sorts of deprivations. A concept must be exactly as defined, or else it's something other.

I am not too concerned about your metaphorical preferences. You can go with the millionaire who refuses the label due to the $100 he/she/hesh can't (in your opinion,) satisfactorily account for, if you prefer. I don't think using that metaphor would have encouraged Mr Smolin to answer my email any faster, if at all, and if, he actually received it.

You might enjoy this:
https://www.quora.com/Where-do-the-electrons-come-from-when-using-magnets-for-electricity-generation

Have a look at the response by William Beaty and his use of 'electricity cannot be created or destroyed' and 'electricity generators don't generate electricity,' and also have a look at the 42 comments.
'Electricity is not energy it is a flow of electrons.'
Its the movement of air that causes wind. The 'energy' is the movement. Energy is transferred, due to movement of individual components. Like humans doing a Mexican wave. Each human does not move laterally they only undulate up and down but there up and down undulations cause a cumulative lateral energy waveform. The up and down undulations are conserved/transformed into a cumulative lateral, observable waveform.

You can go with the millionaire who refuses the label due to the $100 he/she/hesh can't (in your opinion,) satisfactorily account for, if you prefer. — universeness

If it's a temporal issue, like energy is, that missing $100 becomes a huge problem when we extrapolate. If, the rate of loss is that in every second of passing time there is a 100 missing, then the entire million is gone after 10,000 seconds of time. Banno would say, just figure the loss as a fixed, invariable percentage of the total sum, then the amount missing per second becomes less as the total sum becomes less, and we have an infinite amount of time before its all gone. But there is no justification for the application of Banno's principle. It might well be that the overall quantity per time stays relatively fixed, therefore percentage increases as time passes. The cause of loss is unknown therefore how the rate of loss is fixed or unfixed in relation to the passing of time, is also unknown.

This is what you and the other two in the peanut gallery are not getting. The missing quantity occurs as time passes, all the time, therefore the loss is cumulative over time. If, in extrapolation over very large or very tiny time frames, and large or tiny space frames (according to the relationship between these two established by applicable theories), the cumulated missing or gained amount is not accounted for, these long range and short range projections become useless. And, it is impossible to account for the missing amount because it is necessarily an unknown, due to the nature of "energy" being the product of theory laden calculation.

Banno is correct, you are wrong!

Have a look at the response by William Beaty and his use of 'electricity cannot be created or destroyed' and 'electricity generators don't generate electricity,' and also have a look at the 42 comments.
'Electricity is not energy it is a flow of electrons.'
Its the movement of air that causes wind. The 'energy' is the movement. Energy is transferred, due to movement of individual components. Like humans doing a Mexican wave. Each human does not move laterally they only undulate up and down but there up and down undulations cause a cumulative lateral energy waveform. The up and down undulations are conserved/transformed into a cumulative lateral, observable waveform. — universeness

I've seen it explained by Dr. Feynman (a good explainer). We ought not think of the energy as electrons moving through the copper wire, but think of the energy as moving through the field around the wire.

Banno is correct, you are wrong! — universeness

This is the mistake you incessantly demonstrate. You simply assert completely unjustified statements, then go into complete denial when evidence against your assertions is presented. You'd be much better off to keep an open mind toward things which you do not understand, rather than adhere to a prejudice which is derived from who knows where, and prevents you from furthering your understanding.

Banno is correct, you are wrong! — universeness

The fact that this formulation would require an infinite amount of time, ought to indicate to you that it is actually the "wrong-headed" approach.

You'd be much better off to keep an open mind toward things which you do not understand, rather than adhere to a prejudice which is derived from who knows where, and prevents you from furthering your understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover

I take it you are looking in a mirror when you manifest such words. Heal yourself, before you try to recognise shortfalls or ailments in others. You have not exactly inspired many members of TPF, to feel so supportive of your position, that they are all rushing to post compelling evidence and arguments, which support your viewpoints on this thread.

I take it you are looking in a mirror when you manifest such words. — universeness

No, see the difference between your attitude and mine? I don't profess to know the right way, I only criticize what is obviously the wrong way, thereby keeping my mind open toward alternatives to the conventional, when the conventional has proven itself to be deficient. You seem to think that since it's the conventional way it's the right way. Then you try to argue that the obvious deficiency is acceptable, and that the ideal can still be held to be ideal despite the obvious deficiency.

You are now playing "Posts last wins", another pointless game at which Meta is adept.

Lee Smolin is a great contributer to the physics and the human community — universeness

He certainly is! Have you read his cosmological natural selection proposal (from e.g. Life of the Cosmos iirc)?

Oh I know the game fairly well. It's not about my exchange with Meta. The significance of that ended many posts ago. It's was more about any current or future readers of this thread, as small as the number may be.
It's not about 'post last wins,' but about covering all the side alleys Meta tried to run down for cover.
I have listened to many online debaters, discuss when they decide to disengage with an interlocuter, when the exchange has become pointless, for you personally, but may still exemplify certain tactics used by 'sensationalists,' for example that you wish to expose. I appreciate your further 'heads up' however and I am now finished on this thread, unless I get response from Mr Smolin, which is highly unlikely.

He certainly is! Have you read his cosmological natural selection proposal (from e.g. Life of the Cosmos iirc)? — busycuttingcrap

No, but I have watched many of his youtube appearencess alongside other theoretical physicists.
I am attracted to his suggestion that the two primary approaches to quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity and string theory, can be reconciled as different aspects of the same underlying theory.

I remember he was on PBS Space Time's ToE livestream (one of them at any rate) along with Sabine Hossenfelder (who is also awesome). Really enjoyed that. Excellent communicator and sharp physicist with some really interesting proposals and ideas. His cosmological natural selection proposal is super interesting but also highly speculative; he proposes that black hole formation leads to a new "big bang" expansion into a separate spacetime, and reasons out some testable predictions to evaluate this proposal. Just the sort of creative thinker physics needs right now.

I also enjoy watching and listening to Sabine. The branes in Mtheory are also suggested as a possible source for a multiverse. When two branes interact, a new universe starts. I also like CCC from Roger Penrose.
All more interesting and likely than god posits imo.

Yeah I find CCC fascinating (and Penrose is just a treasure). I don't have the math/physics background to evaluate Penrose's claim of positive corroboration in the Planck/WMAP data, but its an awesome idea even purely as a speculative proposal. I hope he lives for another 50 years, the guy is just a monster.