You are changing the subject Banno. Your statement was: Can you see how "there is always more that can be said" implies necessarily that not all can b...
You are looking at the general principle you stated, as if it only applies to one particular case. In that one instance, more can be said, and that wh...
The point is that this is just an assertion, which is contrary to experimental evidence. The evidence shows that all the energy can never be accounted...
I'll choose the dick-rabbit myself, therefore the option that there's always more options. But, what I explained, the difference between "there is som...
I like that, two different ways of saying the same thing, used to demonstrate that you cannot say the same thing in two different ways, simply with th...
The incoherency is quite clear, and I'll explain it to you. You can deny that it exists, and call me whatever name you like, but that doesn't address ...
The point is that energy loss is very real, whether you are looking at the Planck scale or at a scale of the entire universe. It is never "negligible"...
it's easy to give a name to an infinite cardinality (aleph_1 for example), just like we might name it "an infinity", but naming it in no way demonstra...
The problem with your referenced experiment remains. There is an initial energy loss of fifteen percent, which the experimenters refer to at one point...
The so-called "insult" was warranted in response to this: Come on universeness, if you think that air resistance and friction are negligible to a movi...
Look at the graph, and tell me how you would interpret that first 1.5 seconds in any other way than a total energy loss of approximately .15 joules, p...
It's unsettled because there's a problem with what constitutes a "countable" cardinality. As soon as we define "countable" such that an infinite set m...
Canada coach John Herdman wasn’t trying to be disrespectful when he said the next mission for his squad was to “eff Croatia", he was just setting the ...
For a philosopher with the desire to know, the idea that there might be things which are impossible to know is cause for lament. As I said, this is a ...
I see it is pointless discussing this with you. You are in complete denial, and refuse to even attempt to understand some simple physics. However, I w...
OK, so here's the difference which led me to think you were being inconsistent. I suggested the possibility of something which is completely inapprehe...
This is where the begging of the question occurs, in how the mgh (mass x gravitational constant x height) is set to zero. It is done by defining total...
Wait, you seem to be showing inconsistency here Mww. Let's say that it is possible that there are things which could never be brought into the mind, c...
The main point though, is that the conservation of energy in the conversion of PE to KE in the downward motion, is simply manufactured by designating ...
Having gotten that (this false ineffable) out of the way, we can now approach the true ineffable, with the issue of conception. If something never com...
I'm not a physicist, and do not pretend to be one. However, anyone can read the reported experiment, and attempt to understand what was carried out. I...
The issue though is why, or how. Suppose I write here, the word "box", and I tell you that this word signifies something, it stands for something. How...
Look at the first sentence in the article: "When energy is transformed from one form to another, or moved from one place to another, or from one syste...
Why are you so helpless 180? https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_loss#:~:text=When%20energy%20is%20transformed%20from,form%20of%20energy%2C...
My claim is not that any particular experiment has falsified the law of conservation. My claim is that all experiments, each and every one of them has...
No, I don't think so, because the part of the context which is not reachable, is still real. So it's like you are saying that we never need the ideal,...
This is in no way a case of measuring energy. We can never detect all the energy. We never have and we know we never will, you seem to agree with this...
Banno seems to have a very big problem with this, continually insisting that it is unreasonable to reject or be skeptical of the foundational conventi...
I think QFT has obvious problems. And, as I said to Banno, I believe that potential energy and kinetic energy, are fundamentally incommensurable, henc...
Unlike you, reasonable people recognize these useful mathematical fictions as fictions, so these explanations are not even needed. Some of the mathema...
Ha, ha. It's very obvious that Instantaneous velocity is really an oxymoron. No time passes at an instant, and velocity requires a period of time, so ...
Just like in the other (ineffable) thread, what spirit does, is what is taken for granted. Newton's first law of motion for example. That a body will ...
Let me remind you though, your argument is based in the premise that the law of conservation is true. Since the law of conservation is not true, your ...
Why did you name the thread "The philosophy of anarchy", when the op is only talking about the philosophy of governance. Are you ready to get on topic...
The missing ingredient is that little bit of inspiration which gets you up off the couch and out to the bike, and continues to guide your movements at...
To be able (knowing-how) to ride a bike, is not the same thing as riding a bike. When I say "I know how to ride a bike", it does not mean the same thi...
I would say that there is no such thing as what energy is, and trying to make such a determination would be a mistaken venture. This is the mistaken i...
Yes there is two distinct things here, as correctly points out. And, you ought not neglect this difference as it is a manifestation of the difference ...
If the goal of the thread is to just make assumptions with no respect for whether or not they are true, then why don't we just assume that the law of ...
You think I'm disingenuous, then you must actually believe that falsity may work well, and you are guarding yourself against it. In reality falsity wo...
OK, so you gave me the premise right here, the physicist told you so. I never said that you couldn't infer the conclusion with a premise, I said you c...
This is completely untrue. First, Newtonian laws are prior to, in time, and therefore not derived from thermodynamic principles. Furthermore, Newtonia...
You used a definition of "philosopher" which is not consistent with anything printed that I've ever seen. But that's not consistent with the definitio...
Ok, so you admit, you are just defining the term to suit your purpose. Before we can proceed with this inquiry, we must determine the truths and falsi...
You have a very strange definition of "philosopher". It looks like a definition which you manufactured for your purpose. Have you never heard of Plato...
No Bartricks, before focusing on whether A is compatible with B, we need to determine what A and B mean. And this is a matter of truth, otherwise one ...
Wow! Now I've seen everything in an attempt to argue a point. Equivocation at it's worst, right here. Sorry, I don't understand what you claim I am sa...
Comments