Continuation of energy concept!

[iNow]

Please be specific with the post you are talking about so I can figure out how to make it scientific.

 

Here ya go:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/search.php?do=finduser&u=27409

[insane_alien]

fine, here's a list: Energy, Force, electromagnetism, mass etc. etc.

 

really, just go look up the general terms

[walkntune]

inow,

This is for you to ponder on.Did you know that your reality is not meant to be looked at and observed through any scientific method but you actually create your reality by every thought,decision and action that you make?Also how you create your reality also effects the reality of those around you and so forth.If you create your reality just out of what you observe out of a logical scientific method of the world around you then what a cold reality indeed.Its fear and faith that create your reality and everything is somewhere between one or the other.Where there is faith there is warmth and love and life. Where there is fear there is coldness and death.Which ever one you meditate on is the one you become and create as a reality. We are like animals in a cage and will grow no bigger than the cage will allow!

[iNow]

If you create your reality just out of what you observe out of a logical scientific method of the world around you then what a cold reality indeed.

I couldn't disagree more, and the close-minded ignorant arrogance of your comment turns my stomach.

 

 

Where there is faith there is warmth and love and life. Where there is fear there is coldness and death.

Pure nonsensical rubbish, not to mention a pure strawman and conflation of words.

[mooeypoo]

Attitude, people. Please remember this is a debate, and there's no need to go into personal insults or emotional appeals.

 

That said, walkntune, the entire principle of scientific endeavor is to describe reality, and you can't do that by any other means than a rational, logical analysis of the observation. That, however, is not to say that there's no room for emotions, imagination and passion. Those don't have to come in opposition of actual reality.

 

There are objective measures to reality, we know that for a fact. A bowling ball will fall at the same accelerated speed no matter how many times you drop it from the Empire State building or any other height. That's an objective fact, and it doesn't change with emotion or faith.

 

Describing it with emotions or non-factual data is irrelevant and not quite helpful. You may, however, interpret the personal meaning this fact bears on *your* emotions (awe at nature? confusion at physics? whichever it may be). Whatever you pick, though, will not change the fact that falling objects are subjected to gravitational acceleration.

 

When discussion science, then, one must start with objective data. There's no going around it.

 

And when discussing science, we must use the same set of definitions (just like in any discussion, mind you) otherwise we will not understand one another and the discussion is moot. Science has a very clear set of definitions. If you intend on debating scientific phenomena, you can't go around attaching random definitions to terms just to make the meaning fit your intended result.

 

A force is a force, and has clear relationship to acceleration and mass (F=ma, yes) regardless of a belief system. If you want to describe other phenomena, you need to use other definition.

 

~moo

[walkntune]

There are objective measures to reality, we know that for a fact. A bowling ball will fall at the same accelerated speed no matter how many times you drop it from the Empire State building or any other height. That's an objective fact, and it doesn't change with emotion or faith.

 

Describing it with emotions or non-factual data is irrelevant and not quite helpful. You may, however, interpret the personal meaning this fact bears on *your* emotions (awe at nature? confusion at physics? whichever it may be). Whatever you pick, though, will not change the fact that falling objects are subjected to gravitational acceleration.

But also whether or not the ball actually falls is part of reality too and changes the complete reality of those who observe it on whether the ball was actually dropped.Realities are created by our thoughts, feelings, emotions, and actions and not just observed.

[mooeypoo]

But also whether or not the ball actually falls is part of reality too and changes the complete reality of those who observe it on whether the ball was actually dropped.

... What?

 

There is no "weather or not". The ball will always fall to the ground. The only case where it will not fall is if it has another force negating the force of gravity, in which case we're completely switching the initial conditions.

 

You're making no sense.

 

The fact that the ball is subjected to gravitational acceleration - always - has nothing to do with subjectivity or personal perception of reality. It will always fall, and always at the same acceleration. That's science.

 

Realities are created by our thoughts, feelings, emotions, and actions and not just observed.

That's not science, that's philosophy, and a bad one at that. There might be some metaphysical philosophical realms of existence within our own thoughts (er), but the reality science deals with is the objective reality.

 

No matter who you are, what you believe in, what you think of, what mental condition you're under, what thought process your mind operates under, how old you are, how young you are, how many personal experiences you've had -- the force of gravity will always apply on you just like it will apply on a falling bowling ball from the Empire State building, the top of a cliff or the edge of your chair.

 

Objective reality such as science is dealing with is not affected by emotions, thoughts or beliefs. If you think otherwise, I urge you to believe a bowling ball can fly, and then show us reality obeys.

 

 

~moo

[walkntune]

But also whether or not the ball actually falls is part of reality too and changes the complete reality of those who observe it on whether the ball was actually dropped.Realities are created by our thoughts, feelings, emotions, and actions and not just observed.

I will try to explain better. Whether the ball falls or not is two different realities.If it falls it is one reality and if it doesn't it is a different reality.If the person who dropped it never even decided to pick it up in the first place it would not be dropped and would be a complete different reality.So what I meant by realities being created by our thoughts,feelings, actions is that they play a part in whether or not a reality even exist before they can be looked at scientifically.So I am simply stating that there is way more to reality then science can study simply by the fact that reality is created by every thought and feeling you put into action.

Your calling it bad philosophy but I am saying it's a fact.If I go let the air out of my neighbors tire he will be late for work.His reality of events will be changed and they actually will be changed for the rest of his life if I want to go deep with this.

Now I also feel that thoughts and feelings do change the behavior of electrons but that's still all speculated and being observed and tested.

So science is great for observing the physical world and coming to repeated theories and conclusions but I think there is a whole lot more to reality and how it is created.

[mooeypoo]

I will try to explain better. Whether the ball falls or not is two different realities.If it falls it is one reality and if it doesn't it is a different reality.

Where's the reality in which the ball doesn't fall? Show it to us.

 

Every time someone dropped a ball, it fell. Regardless of location, regardless of the circumstances of the person's emotional state, regardless of the person's beliefs. In every instance, the ball fell.

 

That suggests that this "alternative reality" either doesn't exist or is inconsequential. Either way, it's irrelevant for the purpose of science, which describes the reality we live in, not the reality we imagine might exist somewhere.

 

If the person who dropped it never even decided to pick it up in the first place it would not be dropped and would be a complete different reality.

We're not discussing a situation in which a ball is picked up, we're discussing a situation in which a ball is dropped. In all instances where a ball drops, it will fall.

 

What you speak of is a decision made by the experimenter. That's not a different reality, and it DEFINITELY doesn't describe the behavior of nature. Nor does it have any bearing on anything.

 

The purpose of science is to describe the behavior of nature. Gravity is part of nature, and it is described by science. Whether or not you choose to use this knowledge is up to you. By not using it you're not creating an alternative reality, you're just creating an alternative situation. You're still in the same reality. If you chose not to pick the ball up, it doesn't mean the ball is no longer affected by gravity.

 

This part of reality is absolutely objective. No matter what you think, do or believe, it will not change.

 

 

So what I meant by realities being created by our thoughts,feelings, actions is that they play a part in whether or not a reality even exist before they can be looked at scientifically.So I am simply stating that there is way more to reality then science can study simply by the fact that reality is created by every thought and feeling you put into action.

That's not science, it's philosophy, and we've already established here (and in many other threads) that even if there's a claim that some reality is subjective, there's definitely some part of reality that is absolutely objective. Otherwise, you'd be flying while I'd be affected by gravity.

 

You're not, and we are all affected by the exact same natural laws, which is a definite proof of the objective reality we describe by science.

 

Your calling it bad philosophy but I am saying it's a fact.

Then you were shown multiple times to be wrong. Either you're being irrationally pigheaded, or you didn't spend the time reading what people wrote.

 

If I go let the air out of my neighbors tire he will be late for work.His reality of events will be changed and they actually will be changed for the rest of his life if I want to go deep with this.

You are mixing concepts. You affected your neighbor's situation, but you didn't change reality. The fact that air will rush out of high-pressure environment to low-pressure environment is a physical principle that is described by science, which you are using to destroy your neighbor's day.

 

This concept of creating a new reality that you speak of has nothing to do with science. With science you describe the behavior of nature. What you decide to do with it is up to you.

 

Stop mixing up the subjects. Also, this is a science forum, not a philosophy forum. Please try to distinguish the two.

 

Now I also feel that thoughts and feelings do change the behavior of electrons but that's still all speculated and being observed and tested.

So science is great for observing the physical world and coming to repeated theories and conclusions but I think there is a whole lot more to reality and how it is created.

Human beings are proven to be affected by others' emotions. If I see you cry, I will react. It's a proven fact, has to do with psychology and sociology, etc etc.

 

Not only there is no proof that electrons are affected by emotions, there are multiple evidence that show they are not affected by emotions, thoughts or beliefs. Your theory, therefore, is proven to be wrong.

 

If you want to change the above fact, you need to take the extra steps and prove that electrons are affected by thoughts, beliefs and emotions. Only then will a resulting conclusion make any sense.

 

Think of it this way: I am stating that since electrons are happy when they're blue, the sky is happy. What's the problem with this assertion? First, I need to make the case that electrons are able to be "happy". Second, I need to prove the case that electrons are able to be blue. Third, I need to prove the case that electron-happiness and electron-blueness are directly related. Then, I need to show the sky is consisted of electrons, and only *THEN* can I conclude anything of that sort.

 

 

 

You stated a flat out disproved assertion and decided to make a conclusion out of it. The assertion is wrong, and the conclusion is moot.

 

~moo

[walkntune]

If you want to change the above fact, you need to take the extra steps and prove that electrons are affected by thoughts, beliefs and emotions. Only then will a resulting conclusion make any sense.

I believe the double slit experiment may very well be on it's way to show this but until then it will have to be speculation on either side.

Stop mixing up the subjects. Also, this is a science forum, not a philosophy forum. Please try to distinguish the two.

Very well, I will have to remember that this forum is for scientific minded only and no intuitive thinking or philosophy allowed.

[iNow]

Very well, I will have to remember that this forum is for scientific minded only and no intuitive thinking or philosophy allowed.

Again... Pure nonsensical rubbish.

 

I want you to watch this:

 

T69TOuqaqXI

 

 

 

 

 

Now... Any chance you will address insane_alien's post in a meaningful and relevant way?

fine, here's a list: Energy, Force, electromagnetism, mass etc. etc.

 

really, just go look up the general terms

[mooeypoo]

You seem to be conviniently picking parts of my post which you care to answer and ignoring all the rest. That doesn't do much to show your point, walkntune.

 

I believe the double slit experiment may very well be on it's way to show this but until then it will have to be speculation on either side.

We can explain the experiment without the need (or effect) of thoughts, beliefs or any of that sort. In fact, regardless of the belief system of the experimenter the result was the same, which shows that belief has no effect.

 

However, you're welcome to show us different. The only way to do that, though, is to prove the correlation. Just claiming there is one is moot.

 

Very well, I will have to remember that this forum is for scientific minded only and no intuitive thinking or philosophy allowed.

It's not just for scientific minded, it's also for those who have enough intellectual integrity to fully participate in the debate at hand, walkntrude.

 

The discussion is moving in circles, partly because you seem to avoid answering some of my points. Do read my previous post (specifically my examples) and try to include them, as well, in your next reply.

 

Ignoring what you don't like to answer doesn't help your claims at all.

 

~moo

[walkntune]

Again... Pure nonsensical rubbish.

 

Stop mixing up the subjects. Also, this is a science forum, not a philosophy forum. Please try to distinguish the two.

Then what is meant by this?

Edited November 23, 2009 by swansont
fix quote tag

[mooeypoo]

walkntrude, you're not answering points. It's the fourth page already that people ask you questions that you can't answer, and your solution is to ignore the question.

 

We can't continue debating this way, regardless of whether or not your point is discovered to be true. You need to start taking this debate seriously and give us a bit more respect.

 

And as for the last remark, iNow's momentary lapse of attitude aside, you need to stop claiming a philosophical argument is scientific and vise versa. Philosophy is philosophy, and science is science. They may interact in some aspects, but they are not the same.

 

You claim A is science and you explain it using philosophy. That's not good enough to continue to show A is science. If oyu want to discuss science, you must follow the scientific method. If you want to discuss philosophy, we will need to shift the discussion in that direction, in which case it will no longer speak of reality, but rather of philosophical aspects of existence.

 

Choose.

 

~moo

[walkntune]

We can't continue debating this way, regardless of whether or not your point is discovered to be true. You need to start taking this debate seriously and give us a bit more respect.

walkntrude,

Your asking for respect?

[mooeypoo]

I am. Are you going to comply, or are you going to keep posting single-sentences and ignore the points that are made in this debate?

 

 

I'm sorry, I just realized I misspelled your nickname. This was unintentional, really. I realized now that it may look like it was intentional, but it really wasn't. I apologize.

 

That said, you need to start cooperating with us here. The debate is going nowhere.

[walkntune]

What specific question are you wanting answered?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You came in off guard while I was watching inows video.

[mooeypoo]

What specific question are you wanting answered?

All the ones you evaded in the past 10 posts. Read the posts again, and this time deal with the problems we're raising.

 

As a very general summary (you should really read the points, we took the time to raise them for a reason):

 

• insane_alien made a few points about your choice of terminology. You need to make sure you're using scientific terminology correctly, otherwise the claim is moot.
  
• There's no proof emotion or belief affects the double-slit experiment or the behavior of electrons. In fact, there's quite a lot of data showing the opposite is true. This means either your claim is false, or your claim is severely lacking a mechanism.
  

 

Start with the above.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You came in off guard while I was watching inows video.

I wasn't off guard, I was responding to your post. If you're not ready for others to respond, don't post.. if you think you're going to update your words then wait until you're done to post your response, otherwise it's confusing.

[walkntune]

OK

I know energy is the ability to do work.

I know force is a push or pull from one object to another

work is the measure of the change from the force

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There's no proof emotion or belief affects the double-slit experiment or the behavior of electrons. In fact, there's quite a lot of data showing the opposite is true. This means either your claim is false, or your claim is severely lacking a mechanism.

How would you explain the different behavior when it is observed?

[mooeypoo]

How would you explain the different behavior when it is observed?

I don't understand what you mean? There's a very clear explanation to the double-slit experiment. The results repeat themselves quite consistently.

Here's a primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

 

Also, just for the sake of consistency here, if you're interested in talking science and disproving commonly accepted scientific phenomena, then here are the proper definitions:

 

Work:

In physics, mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force acting through a distance. Like energy, it is a scalar quantity, with SI units of joules. The term work was first coined in the 1830s by the French mathematician Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis.[1]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28physics%29

 

Energy:

In physics, energy is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. Different forms of energy include kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, light, elastic, and electromagnetic energy. The forms of energy are often named after a related force.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

 

Force:

In physics, the concept of force is used to describe how a mass is affected, be it in form of acceleration or mechanical stress.[1]. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or pull that can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate, or which can cause a flexible object to deform.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

 

Notice that Energy isn't the ability to do work but rather a quantity of the amount of work that can be performed by the system. I know it sounds similar, but the distinction can be important.

 

And force isn't precisely the 'pull or push' on a system. Again, these distinctions are important when you get into actual claims about what affects certain objects or phenomena.

 

Now, that said, it's clear there's no "emotion force", and no "emotion work" therefore no "emotion energy". Same with belief. Your claim, then, that belief and thought affect phenomena requires some explanation about the proposed mechanism that the effect operates under.

 

And that is without even getting into experiments that were done to measure such proposed force allegedly caused by 'thought' or 'emotion', all of whom failed to demonstrate any effect.

 

 

~moo

[foodchain]

OK

I know energy is the ability to do work.

I know force is a push or pull from one object to another

work is the measure of the change from the force

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

How would you explain the different behavior when it is observed?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

 

You have the weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravity which is not reduced to the standard model as the previous three happen to be. Each of these can be called "forces", or "interactions". The interactions in the three of the standard model are mediated by various things like bosons of for example.

 

If you read the above two I linked in it will help you as force itself is not just a abstract for anything that acts on something. Even though in a very general sense you could get away with using force like that, it wont help you in this thread at this point.

 

Plus realize Wikipedia is a jump off point, as its open source and at one point the entry on physics stated it had nothing to do with biology.

[iNow]

... I was watching inows video.

 

Thank you for taking the time to review the video I posted, walkntune. I had a strong feeling that you would not... that you would ignore it... and I'm glad to see that it meant enough to you to spend a few minutes to make it a part of your experience here. That's a step in the right direction... most definitely.

[walkntune]

Thank you for taking the time to review the video I posted, walkntune. I had a strong feeling that you would not... that you would ignore it... and I'm glad to see that it meant enough to you to spend a few minutes to make it a part of your experience here. That's a step in the right direction... most definitely.

Your welcome. On the contrary of being accused of not showing respect I actually do take great consideration to someones time and thoughts in posting.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

How would you explain the different behavior when it is observed?

Foodchain, not sure if you assumed this statement was a bout force and energy?

I was actually referring to the fact of the double slit experiment where the electron actually behaves differently when it is observed then when it was not.

[mooeypoo]

I was actually referring to the fact of the double slit experiment where the electron actually behaves differently when it is observed then when it was not.

Really? How do you know how electrons behave when you don't observe them?

 

The entire principle is that observation equals interference. Obviously the behavior will be changed when interaction is done, that's the point Quantum Mechanics is making.

 

There's no need or use for emotions, beliefs or thoughts, nor is there any form of demonstrated mechanism that any of those has any sort of detectable "force".

 

The above is the third time I am putting this up for your consideration, walkntune.. the above also completely endangers your idea, seeing as it demonstrates emotion, thoughts and feelings are *NOT* affecting anything. Can you answer this concern already?

[padren]

How would you explain the different behavior when it is observed?

 

Just a point of clarification, I'd like to mention that "observation" (as I understand it, an expert may clarify or correct me) is not defined as observed by a person, but the effect of an observer in terms of any measurement of the phenomena. The manner in which this confounds people trying to measure quantum phenomena is purely mechanical, due to the scale involved.

 

The reason for this is we are used to measuring things that are being effected by the environment in infinitesimally small ways, but we can measure those infinitesimal effects and thus observe the element we are interested in without impacting it in any serious manner.

 

Consider sunlight: it's perfect for observing anything large enough to see, as photons will bounce off it and reflect in various directions including our eyes and it's thus observed. We know it's "lit" in the same way we know a duck flying in the rain is "wet" but the effect is minimal on it's behavior.

When you get small enough though, lets say a fruit fly out in the rain, it is so small it is either dry or crushed by a droplet of rain.

 

Go even smaller, and something is either "in the dark" or completely knocked off course by a single photon. Once we hit that scale anything we use to observe it will influence it. This is how the "observer" influences quantum phenomena - and the issue is purely mechanical.

 

We thus call it the "observer problem" because no matter what tool we pull out to try and measure it with the end result is the same: the tool has too large of an impact on the phenomena observed to give us any information on how it would behave if we had not tried to observe it. When you use a volt meter to measure current, the tweaking of the needle changes the current, but the disturbance is generally too small to effect the observation or can be accounted for. When the needle of a compass indicates the presence of a magnetic field, it effects the field it is responding to.

 

I am sure you are familiar with the quote "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" and it's the crux of the problem: where in the past we have used smaller things to measure bigger things without upsetting the behavior of the bigger thing - we have nothing smaller to use when we measure quantum phenomena. Everything we have to throw at it will upset the system in such a chaotic way we cannot extrapolate the state at the moment we tried to observe it.

 

It's like trying to measure the flight path of a bullet by shooting bowling balls at it and listening for the 'clink' of a midair collision: You can measure it then, but the path of the bullet has been irrevocably changed as soon as you hear that clink. That's the meaning of "observer," and if no one hears the clink but the collision occurs, the results are the same.

 

It's not nearly as ominous as it sounds.