Rocketman Allen, olblucat budging in about energy

RocketmanAllen wrote:

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?

HGL

olblucat wrote:

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?

HGL

olblucat wrote:

Mr Lundahl

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.

olblucat

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

... on Independent existence

Collected arguments in logical order.

RocketmanAllen wrote:

"Who or what created the creator. The creator simply came from non-existance ot existance or was simply always there?

"You can't apply the something must have created the universe for it to exist without that question coming around."

Objection overruled!

There is a distinction between what needs something else in order to exist and that which exists in its own right.

Everything needing something else to exist needs either something else that also needs something else to exist or it needs that which exists in its own right. Since nothing can depend on an infinite number of conditions for its existence(See footnote.)this brings us back to that which exists in its own right - and by definition, THAT does not need any Creator. But it may very well be the Creator - and actually is, as may be proven from another argument.

Hans Georg Lundahl


Footnote to Voice of Principle: the infinite is by definition what cannot be transcrossed. An infinite distance is a distance noone can pass through and an infinite number of conditions is one that never can be fulfilled. That is why the regress into the infinite is impossible.

Your definition of infinite is too limited. Consider an infinite convergent series. It is both infinite and fulfilled.

Infinite series are not actual infinities, only potential ones. Not that they have the potency actually to reach the infinite, but that there is no finite limit to their potency to go on. I am taking this to the Independent Existence thread, which is a spin-off from this. HGL

Your definition of the infinite implies that an infinite number of conditions must be processed serially. Why should this be a requirement? Suppose I have an infinite number of conditions designated condition 1, condition 2, condition 3, etc. Suppose all odd numbered conditions occur first and occur simultaneously. Suppose further that once the odd numbered conditions have occurred that the even numbered conditions will then occur, again all simultaneously. Under these condtions, an infinite number of conditions can be satisfied in a finite number of steps. Comments?

Yes. Accomplishing an infinite number of conditions simultaneously does not alter the nature of one condition depending on another. You claim an infinite number of steps could be made in a finite number of moments. It would be even clearer if we were arguing the 1st way, proof of unmoved mover.

The hit depends on the hammer in motion, the hammer in motion on the hand in motion, the hand on the arm, the arm on the will. Period. Only in further analysis we may see that the smith is not an unmoved mover in the full sense. But he is an example of what unmoved mover means in the process of hammering. Obviously the simultaneous conditions for the hammer hit cannot be infinite. Infinity is not to be transcrossed, a travel through infinity - whether temporal and successive or non-temporal and simultaneous - means never arriving.

Same goes for same reason for conditions of causation or - as we are discussing here - being, existence.

Hans Georg Lundahl


RocketmanAllen wrote:

"Somebody finally got it! (without realizing it). Neither can be proven to exist with or without the other.

"You caught yourself with your own argument.

"Creationists want to state that existance of anything cannot occur without a creator."

Not so - another misquoted argument.

The existence of anything DEPENDING ON SOMETHING ELSE FOR EXISTENCE cannot occur without the existence of that something else. There is a difference between "the existence of anything" and "the existence of anything DEPENDING ON SOMETHING ELSE FOR EXISTENCE" - see. You made a confusion between simpliciter and secundum quid - which is a sophism.

Hans Georg Lundahl

zoombwaz wrote:
"But who defines that which can exist on its own right, and that which must be created? You? Who is to say the universe doesn't exist in its own right? Your logic is faulty, as you assume the universse must be created, in order to prove the existence of a creator. It is in fact circular, and an unsupported premise to boot."

What is clearly dependent on something else for existence needs an ultimate necessarily existent ground for its existence, as proven. The question whether that ultimate ground is the creator is another one, the answer to which is NOT presupposed as necessary proof in the argument above, which is why my argument is NOT a circle in demonstration.

As to your question: existing in its own right means existing without depending on any other thing for it. It is an existance that cannot vary with the condition of other things. Hence everything the existence of which is demonstrably varied - like coming to exist or ceasing to exist - is ruled out from existing in its own right. This was proved already by the eleatic philosophers, who were NOT Christians.

Hans Georg Lundahl