closing of physics debate

Ken 052246 wrote:

Hans

It seems you are right that the potential kinetic energy of an object is not stored internally (except in terms of its mass), but exists in the relationship of the suspended object and the earth.

You seem to be saying since the energy is not internally stored, therefore the potential energy is not real and energy is not the "ultimate ground of existence". I wonder, if the energy is not real, where does the force exhibited by impact come from? Are you saying this is external to the object?

The causal or logical link that seems apparent to you escapes me, and also the implications, since this seems to have an import to you.

• Does potential energy exist as a substance, a thing? No.


• Is it as one determinate quantity of one thing? No.


• Is it as one determinate quality of one thing? No.


• Is it one determinate actual relation between two things - see first post. The real actual relations are other.


• Is it a place or a time or a situation of the parts of one determinate thing? No.


• Is it an actual action or passion or "having"? No.


• Is it actual but transcendental, in many of the categories? No.

It is potential, not actual.

That potential is reduced to act in the fall of the object. When it comes to falling, there is an actual passion - falling - and an actual action - the impact on the ground. Whether you account for the passion by the striving of the heavy thing for its natuaral place (Aristotle) or by gravitation mutual between object and earth (Newton), the potential is reduced to act thereby, not by any potential energy. The potential energy is precisely that potential which is reduced to act, not the cause of that reduction to act!!! And potential energy being one form of energy means that energy is sometimes potential rather than actual, which rules it out from being the ultimate ground of actual existence, something which must be actual. I think I said as much to Rocketman Allen, in somewhat fewer words.

Hans Georg Lundahl

olblucat wrote:

Mr Lundahl

I was not attempting to debate you. That is best left up to individuals such as VQ and VOP.
I am just attempting to understand your Points. I thought at first you disagreed with the physical "laws".

You seem to feel there is a force acting that standard pyhsics does not address. I do not understand this.
If all my calculations work as designed to and the formulas give satisfactory results that function as designed, why add anything else? What am I to add? What is missing.

If a falling oject were to land on a push button and force the button down to enable the switch, where does that energy come from if not "potential".? When did that force appear?

Rather it is you who add un-necessary things - a potential energy with a determinate quantity - to account for conservation of energy without positing conservation of actual movement (a clearly contrafactual position). The fall is either caused by mutual attraction of heavy things (Newton) or of natural tendency of heavy things towards their natural place, middle of earth (Aristotle), and its momentum certainly increases by the cause adding to the momentum already gained. This means that movement is increased. There is simply no need to add a post in the account where that increase is balanced by exactly same decrease. Unless you beg the question by qualifying energy as ultimate ground of existence and therefore unchangeable in some respect (you've chosen quantity, but it should be all respects). HGL

Ken 052246 wrote:

Hans

You say:
"There must be something which exists in its own right especially if other things depend on it for existence".

Why does existence require some "other thing" that has to be depended on for existence?

I can see how the ratio of matter to anti-matter, or the sub-atomic constants might qualify, is that what you mean?

Since you do not believe in the solar system, I have to ask: Do you believe in atoms and the menagerie of sub-atomic particles in the standard model?

Independent existence by definition requires no other existence as ground for its being. Also it means invariable existence, existence that cannot be varied by other causes. Existence that is always actual, never merely potential.

Variable existence is obviously not independent and therefore obviously requires some other cause for its being.

Smaller and smaller particles may exist or not, but since their existence is varied, they cannot be the ultimate ground of existence. Nor can energy, for the reasons stated in the main post of this thread.

Hans Georg Lundahl

RocketmanAllen wrote:

GREAT POST! BRAVO!!!

Ragz95 wrote:

This is the very same nonsense used when Galileo showed definitively that the Earth was not at the center of the universe.

Almost 350 years later, the Christian community says "Well, you might be right about that one after all."

Evolution, natural selection and the like in no way diminishes your or my belief in God. In fact, it only enhances God's image when we realize what a remarkable machine is this universe of ours.

Can the head in the sand mentality and bring your mind into the real world. God is even more wonderous there than He is in your world of magic and miracles.

If the ideas of the Christians were allowed to prevail we would still be knee deep in the Dark Ages and they'd be butchering one another and every one else who didn't follow their religious philosophies.

Mr Ragz:
the Dark Ages (end of Roman administrative unity in the West to beginning of Reconquista and Crusades, some 500 years or so) were dark in view of military success and peaceful administration, but certainly NOT intellectually.

As for hanging Galileo, I am not for lynching the corpse of a man who retracted his mistake and, the second time (after 1633) kept faith with the Holy Inquisition.

As for putting head in sand, refusing to look at facts like an ostrich, I've not done so, but rather my opponents on physics thread and other threads. There is no conclusive evidence now and was no conclusive evidence then for heliocentrism.

I am quoting your sad post and the bravo of Rocketman, to show what I am answering.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Ken 052246 wrote:

How a literate human being living in the 21st century can say "There is no conclusive evidence now and was no conclusive evidence then for heliocentrism." is utterly beyond me.

budnfrog wrote:

yes, Hans is...he is in a world of his own...

Ken 052246 wrote:

Yes, a different reality. I read him saying if the Earth were moving, he would feel it, because it would throw off his sense of balance.
Balanced. Unbalanced. A thought is forming.......

I did not say THAT, did I? I said that my sense of balance tells me the earth stands still. As to whether my sense of balance would have the sense to be dizzy or not if it were the other way, I did not give any opinion. Before going into that, please give me proof my sense of balance is wrong in the first instance! People who first assume the sense of balance is wrong, then explain how it goes wrong and then take that explanation as proof for it actually being wrong, should not speak about being in a world of ones own or being unbalanced.

HGL