Is the law of conservation of energy right?

The cluster (gathering) of the noise is the particle. A crowd is not people, but rather a gathering of people. A human body is not chemicals, but rather a gathering of chemicals (in a particular order).

I rewrite your analogy as follows:

If a particle is the cluster (gathering) of the noise, and the crowd is - rather (!) - a gathering of people and the human body - rather (!) a gathering of chemicals (in a particular order), then a particle must - rather (!) - be like a human body or like a crowd, whereas the noise must - rather (!) - be like chemicals (in a particular order) or like people.

Well…
Umm…
Okay…

:laughing:

Yes, exactly like Darwin’s Natural Selection, the law of conservation of energy is a fundamental principle of the universe.

Your statement is merely religious, theological, pantheistical. Stop referring to your god(s). Try to leave your false god Darwin and the 19th century. In addition: Darwin is not the issue in this thread.

But is it possible that science’s ontologies will be revisited and reborn? I mean, think of all the destroyers who become more and more daily. Just those who say that they have a solution are mostly the wildest destroyers. And think of all those stupid or absurd theories (philosophies?) circulating here on ILP, for instance.

It’s not only possible, it is very probable.

I guess, you mean all this narcistic “theories”, kinds of solipsim (extreme subjectivism) and nihilism. => => => =>

They fit the wildest destroyers as well as the stupidities or absurdities you are talking about.

You seem to be sure about that. Right?

Science” means “natural science” in the first place, and “natura science” means “physics” in the frist place. So how could its ontologies be revisited and reborn accordíng to you?

Natural knowledge is basically binary before it develops into more sophisticated uses, or functions from the existential requirements of knowledge, such as flight or flight. Physics derives perhaps, from the literally physical manifestations of knowledge, and that is why it is referentially effective

It s ontology has such referent, and it has a probability of recurrence based.on existential recurrence, rather then primarily a thematic one to physics as a secondary development.

You are right, its a probabilistic hypothesis, arguable both ways, but not as deeply divisive as for instance, the familiar question were to be asked: What comes first, the chicken or the egg.

In any case, the problem therefore, is not settled, yet does not rise to the level of being paradoxical. It tends to gravitate toward a semantic loophole, but I that might be diversive , to cover for the latent inversion of knowledge and its effective entropy, or closure.

The literality of hypothesis breaks down as Your answer suggests it might, but I do have some reference, although equally suggestive.

My only defense is based on a more probable scenario , and with probability ranging minimally from nearly a 50-50 scenario…

For this You may challenge with a more narrow focus toward an effect of demonstrative physical science criteria, but the ontology or metaphysical basis suggests more then merely a semantic criteria

I do wish it were the other way, and that is what ultimately I believe, but demonstraticaly, it’s more conjecture in with a categorically imperative, then its underlying causation. Needless to say, science foundations may be revisited and even revised, over again. There are no present statistical showings whereby, the shidtnfrom probable to more certainty may not change the rules themselves.

Every potential to affect consumes itself as it creates affect. And every affect creates an equal potential to affect as it propagates. Since there is nothing else, no amount of affectance can ever be lost nor gained. And such is yet another reason that the universe is necessarily infinite and without beginning nor end.

When it comes to the internet, they are just trolls, on top of it all: stupid trolls.

“Eat my narcistic interpretation or die” is what those trolls are saying all the time.

Man I have to give you props for that! You come across as venomous at times with your unprovoked ad hominous attacks (wish you’d quit that), but that’s one helluva ground breaking answer! So why isn’t that accepted by the mainstream and taught? It seems a matter of common sense for the very fact we’re here that the universe is perfectly capable of organizing itself.

Yeah no shit. Physics inherited its terminology from religion. I call them observed regularities.

But we still have to disagree there because if the universe were infinite, there surely couldn’t be any such thing as conservation of energy.

I agree and it’s why there can’t also be an infinite amount of it.

Has no one considered Rayleigh-Jeans? You can pump in as much Energy as you want but if it’s is not of sufficiently high frequency it will simply be absorbed or radiated out. Note: the absorbed energy does not add mass. I think it was Bohr that needed to change the equation.

Good point, but I suppose if the energy went right through, then it wasn’t pumped in.

Hi Serendipper,

Here is my understanding of the situation.

In a conserved energy model, the total input energy = total escaped energy + total absorbed energy.

In these experiments, the total input energy is greater than the total escaped energy. This means that some energy must have been absorbed. However, if the frequency of the total absorbed energy is not equal to certain allowable quantities, then the total absorbed energy is simply lost.

What one would expect is that the Hydrogen atom would simply become agitated in a continuous manner to account for the absorbed energy. But except for these special cases, the Hydrogen atom simply acts as an energy sink – the energy simply goes away.

The equation is no longer balanced and the law of conservation energy is no longer valid.

Random babble:

I think that this is historically a big deal. Bohr’s insight into this matter, i.e. changing the equation to only allow for quantum inputs may have been the first use of quantum mechanics.

Another totally random thought is that in one of his popular books, I think it was QED, Feynman talks about how sad it was when he explained to his father that some energy simply goes away. His father paid for his education and now he must dissolution his father of a fundamental belief in Physics.

Thanks for your response, I appreciate it.

Ed3

Energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation can only affect charge as a property of “particles” in relation to the mass of the particle and the strength and distance of the bond (which acts as a spring in mass resonance).

Absorption of energy is when the molecule resonates and the resonant oscillations produce a 180 degree phase-shifted wave that cancels the original. Technically, the wave does not stop, but travels in tandem with the 180 degree wave in cancellation, but the energy was imparted to the molecule and so it’s called “absorption”.

Now if a particle is too heavy or the bond too weak, then a high-frequency wave will not be able to cause the particle to oscillate and will pass right through minimally-affected. If the particle is light or the bond strength is strong, then a low-frequency wave will have no effect.

If you could perform an audio sweep with a sinewave generator in the presence of a wineglass, you’ll eventually find the resonant frequency of the glass and the only point where the glass absorbs significant energy. Otherwise, the energy goes right through.

So, all energy passes through, but at points of “coupling” at resonant frequencies there is a cancellation wave produced that allows for apparent absorption of energy.

Perhaps this image will help:

Hi Serendipper,

Thanks for your response.

I think that the critical point here is whether or not the input energy is equal to the output energy, if the intervening material is not excited.

From my memory, the answer is that output energy is less than the input energy. I could be wrong.

Are you stating categorically that the output energy and the input energy are equal in this case?

It might also be possible that you are stating that you cannot measure the output energy. I would be skeptical about that point, but open to persuasion.

Thanks Ed3