Who or what created God? And with that, I hereby declare myself a "serious taker".
Allright, Allen! And to the point as well. This thread is actually a sub-point on my old reply to your question: there must be something which exists in its own right especially if other things depend on it for existence. And that something everyone, except modern physicists calls God, but modern physicists claim that energy is what needs nothing else to exist. Below I have challenged that identification: Allen, are you prepared to defend it against my rather technical arguments on the nature of physic energy, especially potential energy?
In all seriousness, Mr Lundahl. Either the world is wrong or you are.
You would never have passed my senior high school Finals with your interpretation of Physics. You would have failed in the first physics experiment lab.
I cannot comprehend your twisting of basic physics and ignoring basic physical actions.
I'm waiting for you to prove water flows uphill next.
A total waste of reading time.
Not a serious taker - just a physicist claiming I have misunderstood, without pointing out exactly where - just like valancequark who has also decided to beat about the bush. Did you or did you not read my arguments about what potential energy clearly cannot be identified with? Have you or have you not an answer?
You made two statements that I find very contrarywise to most of my physics knowledge.
First, the conservation of energy and the potential energy.
I have observed objects falling from heights and their destruction.
Practical experience says the destruction is greater as the starting point of the fall begins. The force of impact is much greater also.
You mean the destruction of falling objects is greater the higher the object falls from? I agree. Were did you find me stating the contrary? I have not denied that there is some sort of proportion between the physical work done in lifting an object, the kinetic energy (momentum) of it falling and the impact (new physical work) done when it smashes. I have stated a problem: between the lifting and the falling there is no entity internal to the object or otherwise per se actual that preserves this proportion. That means: potential energy is not a positive real entity, the conservation of energy is rather a theoretic conservation of figures on a paper than a conservation of any positive entity. That means: physical energy cannot be the ultimate ground of existence, as it has been usually presented to the general public since it was discovered by Hiroshima that physical matter certainly wasn't. HGL
The reasons for an object losing it's energy in linear or angular momentum.
Again, as with the first part, I have observed many times this application in real time.
The above two have direct bearing on two of my own interests. Ballistics, both rockets and cannon shell, and aerodynamics as applied to both flying modelplanes and ground vehicles.
Now, I am confused as to what you believe controls all the various physical actions observed and studied and the results obtained.
If my interpretation of your beliefs are correct, then I can throw 100 years of testing and designing of airfoils out the window, as well as years of windtunnel testing.
This hasn't considered the same effects as applied to water craft such as the America Cup ship and sail designs.
You speak of theory, while I have to apply it.
Please, Oblucat. Would you do less interpretation of what I mean and what that would mean to ballistics and more of answering the points raised? Or was that the answer to my point: what proof is there that only air friction is responsible for any loss of momentum? My answer to that would be that some of your loss of momentum is not due to air friction but happens anyway. I think there would be acceptable ways of getting that into your calculations without upsetting the actual results. HGL
I do apologize for my poor phrasing. I do have a personal problem with extracting the correct words at the correct time from my thoughts and placing them on paper.