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

Voice of Principle comments on my dialogue with olblucat

...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.

====<1> Hans: Your error in understanding the nature of potential energy is due to the fact that you are looking only at the object. Potential energy involves an object + the gravitational field in which it finds itself. The distance of the object from the field's center of gravity + the distance over which the object will free fall determines the magnitude of the potential energy. <1>====

To VoP: NB will fall. Not something that is actually but something that will potentially. Which is basically what I am saying.
_____________________________




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.

====<1> If that were the case, then perpetual motion machines would be possible and the world's energy problem would have been long since solved. <1>====

To VoP: how does that follow?
_______________________________



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.

====<1> An unfounded conclusion. <1>====

To VoP: the conservation of matter as ground of existence and energy as ground of movement independently of each other seems to have been disproven by Hiroshima bomb.


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?

====<1> The proofs are many. Changing the shape of the arrow, particularly the arrow head, can improve or degrade flight distance in a mathemtically predictable fashion based on an analysis of aerodynamic factors. The same analysis can be applied to any object traveling through the atmosphere (using an appropriate data base describing the physical characteristics of the object).

Orbiting spacecraft outside the atmosphere experience virtually no frictional effects due to collisions with air molecules (the noteworthy exception being the solar wind), and therefore remain in orbit for centuries, millenia, or millions of years (duration depending on the mass of the craft and the nature of the chance atoms and molecules it encounters, space not being a perfect vacuum).

Perhaps the best example of air resistance was the recent tragedy involving the space shuttle Columbia. As the vehicle broke up and lost aerodynamic integrity, frictional forces created by its interaction with the upper atmosphere consumed so much energy that the pieces of the vehicle ended their flight hundreds of miles short of their destination, Cape Canaveral. <1>====

To VoP: you reason mostly as if rebutting the position that air friction were not a cause for loss of momentum. That is not my position. As for satellites outside atmosphere, the artificial ones have only been up a few decades, and the millennia of the others is begging the question: how do you, not explain, but prove that lack of air fricion and momentum preserved by such lack are the causes of that movement?

Hans Georg Lundahl

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