The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Pity you weren't taught Einstein's theory of Acceleration Due To Panicking.  I'm sure most of us have got bumps and bruises for ignoring that one.

Boru

The panic must have been on a heroic scale for Mr. Newton’s theory of panicked acceleration to have proven to be wanting.

No disrespect to Sir Isaac, but he ccould possibly have foreseen the applications of panicked acceleration to disembarking from a passenger train.  Newton snuffed it in 1727, the first passenger trains in Portugal weren't operative until more than 100 years later.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

The panic must have been on a heroic scale for Mr. Newton’s theory of panicked acceleration to have proven to be wanting.

No disrespect to Sir Isaac, but he ccould possibly have foreseen the applications of panicked acceleration to disembarking from a passenger train.  Newton snuffed it in 1727, the first passenger trains in Portugal weren't operative until more than 100 years later.

Boru

You must have very low opinion of sir Issac’s scientific prowess to think his theory of panicked acceleration would be generally unequal to the demands of manners of fright as yet unknown.

[comet]

You also mentioned "energy is the Time component of ..." , whats that mean? energy is the time component?

A vector has components. So, for example, a vector in two dimensions has an x-component and a y-component. A vector in three dimensions has three components: x,y, and z. A vector in four dimensions has four components: x,y,z, and t.

So, in the energy-momentum 4-vector, the x,y, and z components are the amounts of momentum in the x,y, and z directions. The t component is the energy.

Now, truthfully, if you didn't know what a vector is, you don't have even enough *classical* physics to have a *basic* knowledge of physics, and thereby even a basic understanding of energy. And to have a *modern* view requires a LOT more than just some knowledge of vector calculus.

I am sorry, maybe I wasn't clear.  I went back and reread the post.  I think i got confused with "energy is the Time component of ...".  I thought you were saying that "energy is time", that's what I got confused with.  You were just saying that the fourth vector is an energy vector, not that time is energy.

All I am saying is that scientist do not know what energy is.  They can describe what it does and what happens to it to form particles, but they do not know what it is.  Back to my wife and car.

[polymath257]

A vector has components. So, for example, a vector in two dimensions has an x-component and a y-component. A vector in three dimensions has three components: x,y, and z. A vector in four dimensions has four components: x,y,z, and t.

So, in the energy-momentum 4-vector, the x,y, and z components are the amounts of momentum in the x,y, and z directions. The t component is the energy.

Now, truthfully, if you didn't know what a vector is, you don't have even enough *classical* physics to have a *basic* knowledge of physics, and thereby even a basic understanding of energy. And to have a *modern* view requires a LOT more than just some knowledge of vector calculus.

I am sorry, maybe I wasn't clear.  I went back and reread the post.  I think i got confused with "energy is the Time component of ...".  I thought you were saying that "energy is time", that's what I got confused with.  You were just saying that the fourth vector is an energy vector, not that time is energy.

All I am saying is that scientist do not know what energy is.  They can describe what it does and what happens to it to form particles, but they do not know what it is.  Back to my wife and car.

No, I am saying that the energy of a particle is the fourth piece of a vector, the rest of which describes momentum.

And it is not clear what you mean when you say 'scientists don't know what energy is'. Sure we do. It's the fourth component of the energy-momentum vector.

The problem is that 'what something is' is a metaphysical question and thereby likely to be simply meaningless. Much better is to realize *all* physical concepts are defined operationally: by how we measure them. This is just as true of energy as it is of mass, charge, spin, parity, momentum, angular momentum, etc.

Here's a question. What sort of answer is possible to the question 'what is energy'? Once again, the predictability obtained in science and the detail is far above what your wife does with the car. At some point 'knowing what something is' is the same as 'knowing how it works'.

[comet]

I am sorry, maybe I wasn't clear.  I went back and reread the post.  I think i got confused with "energy is the Time component of ...".  I thought you were saying that "energy is time", that's what I got confused with.  You were just saying that the fourth vector is an energy vector, not that time is energy.

All I am saying is that scientist do not know what energy is.  They can describe what it does and what happens to it to form particles, but they do not know what it is.  Back to my wife and car.

No, I am saying that the energy of a particle is the fourth piece of a vector, the rest of which describes momentum.

And it is not clear what you mean when you say 'scientists don't know what energy is'. Sure we do. It's the fourth component of the energy-momentum vector.

The problem is that 'what something is' is a metaphysical question and thereby likely to be simply meaningless. Much better is to realize *all* physical concepts are defined operationally: by how we measure them. This is just as true of energy as it is of mass, charge, spin, parity, momentum, angular momentum, etc.

Here's a question. What sort of answer is possible to the question 'what is energy'? Once again, the predictability obtained in science and the detail is far above what your wife does with the car. At some point 'knowing what something is' is the same as 'knowing how it works'.

I  disagree with you.  the vector comment is not what energy is.  The vector is modeling what energy does.  jut like they do not know what gravity is and they do not know what space/time is.  They have know idea why QM works.  energy is exactly like those three.  it is just  fact.  there is nothing we can do about it.  yet. 

You are answering metaphysical and thus meaningless.  I am saying its only metaphysical by definition and not meaningless.  It very meaningful and we are spending a lot of resources to find out what it means. 

why is it meaningless to you?  is everything you don't meaningless?

[polymath257]

No, I am saying that the energy of a particle is the fourth piece of a vector, the rest of which describes momentum.

And it is not clear what you mean when you say 'scientists don't know what energy is'. Sure we do. It's the fourth component of the energy-momentum vector.

The problem is that 'what something is' is a metaphysical question and thereby likely to be simply meaningless. Much better is to realize *all* physical concepts are defined operationally: by how we measure them. This is just as true of energy as it is of mass, charge, spin, parity, momentum, angular momentum, etc.

Here's a question. What sort of answer is possible to the question 'what is energy'? Once again, the predictability obtained in science and the detail is far above what your wife does with the car. At some point 'knowing what something is' is the same as 'knowing how it works'.

I  disagree with you.  the vector comment is not what energy is.  The vector is modeling what energy does.  jut like they do not know what gravity is and they do not know what space/time is.  They have know idea why QM works.  energy is exactly like those three.  it is just  fact.  there is nothing we can do about it.  yet. 

You are answering metaphysical and thus meaningless.  I am saying its only metaphysical by definition and not meaningless.  It very meaningful and we are spending a lot of resources to find out what it means. 

why is it meaningless to you?  is everything you don't meaningless?

Well, let me put it this way. What *sort* of answer to the question 'what is energy' would you consider to be appropriate? Even a ballpark example where what 'something is' is answered in a way you find to be acceptable.

From what I can see, to ask what something 'is' isn't usually a reasonable question. We can ask for its composition (if it is made of other things) or its properties (how it works), but asking for what it 'is' in some metaphysical sense is BS.

There are a couple of general ways of defining energy. Perhaps the best is that it is the conserved quantity derived from Noether's Theorem when the laws of physics are time invariant. In those cases where the laws are NOT time invariant, energy can't even be defined. In those cases where the laws 8are* invariant, itNoether's law gives a good definition.

And it turns out to be that fourth component of the energy-momentum vector because usually time invariance also comes along with location invariance, which gives momentum conservation.

When you say we don't know why QM works, it seems to me that you have things exactly backwards. QM is the *answer* to how things work. And it seems to be fundamental, which means it has no underlying 'reason' for 'why' it is the way it is.

Now, it is possible some future modification of our understanding will have QM as a consequence of some *other* laws, but then *those* laws will have no 'reason' for them.

I suspect you are wanting some sort of 'mechanism' that is based on a classical concept of particles and composition that is simply false. THis is where metaphysical assumptions about how things 'must be' lead to problems: the universe may not agree that it 'must be' how you think it should be.

[comet]

I  disagree with you.  the vector comment is not what energy is.  The vector is modeling what energy does.  jut like they do not know what gravity is and they do not know what space/time is.  They have know idea why QM works.  energy is exactly like those three.  it is just  fact.  there is nothing we can do about it.  yet. 

You are answering metaphysical and thus meaningless.  I am saying its only metaphysical by definition and not meaningless.  It very meaningful and we are spending a lot of resources to find out what it means. 

why is it meaningless to you?  is everything you don't meaningless?

Well, let me put it this way. What *sort* of answer to the question 'what is energy' would you consider to be appropriate? Even a ballpark example where what 'something is' is answered in a way you find to be acceptable.

From what I can see, to ask what something 'is' isn't usually a reasonable question. We can ask for its composition (if it is made of other things) or its properties (how it works), but asking for what it 'is' in some metaphysical sense is BS.

There are a couple of general ways of defining energy. Perhaps the best is that it is the conserved quantity derived from Noether's Theorem when the laws of physics are time invariant. In those cases where the laws are NOT time invariant, energy can't even be defined. In those cases where the laws 8are* invariant, itNoether's law gives a good definition.

And it turns out to be that fourth component of the energy-momentum vector because usually time invariance also comes along with location invariance, which gives momentum conservation.

When you say we don't know why QM works, it seems to me that you have things exactly backwards. QM is the *answer* to how things work. And it seems to be fundamental, which means it has no underlying 'reason' for 'why' it is the way it is.

Now, it is possible some future modification of our understanding will have QM as a consequence of some *other* laws, but then *those* laws will have no 'reason' for them.

I suspect you are wanting some sort of 'mechanism' that is based on a classical concept of particles and composition that is simply false. THis is where metaphysical assumptions about how things 'must be' lead to problems: the universe may not agree that it 'must be' how you think it should be.

good stuff ... I get ya.  But I think you are looking at an end game that I am not really looking for.  I am only interested in how the universe works.  you got one thing right, if you give me a mechanism I will certainly entertain it for more than I will the statement that energy is a vector competent in special relativity, four-momentum.
 
yes, I agree to everything else you said.  I was only pointing out your statement about what energy is being wrong.  At best, its a property that allows us to do work.  Its not fundamental in that it based on the properties of other "volumes of space/time".  That being potential differences due to the states of those volumes.  for example: Like + or -  charges 
 
It (energy) looks like its just a way to describe the different volumes relative to each other.  But I am no particle physicist and I haven't done a lerneze transformation in over 25 years. lol, 10 years has long past me by. 
 
I also feel that "time" as a demission is just a useful trick.  Time is just repeating states changes that we can call a tick.  I think they close the gap (very big and very small) when they remove dt.

ps: I know, I should say very fast vs very small, but thats a story for another day.

[polymath257]

Well, let me put it this way. What *sort* of answer to the question 'what is energy' would you consider to be appropriate? Even a ballpark example where what 'something is' is answered in a way you find to be acceptable.

From what I can see, to ask what something 'is' isn't usually a reasonable question. We can ask for its composition (if it is made of other things) or its properties (how it works), but asking for what it 'is' in some metaphysical sense is BS.

There are a couple of general ways of defining energy. Perhaps the best is that it is the conserved quantity derived from Noether's Theorem when the laws of physics are time invariant. In those cases where the laws are NOT time invariant, energy can't even be defined. In those cases where the laws 8are* invariant, itNoether's law gives a good definition.

And it turns out to be that fourth component of the energy-momentum vector because usually time invariance also comes along with location invariance, which gives momentum conservation.

When you say we don't know why QM works, it seems to me that you have things exactly backwards. QM is the *answer* to how things work. And it seems to be fundamental, which means it has no underlying 'reason' for 'why' it is the way it is.

Now, it is possible some future modification of our understanding will have QM as a consequence of some *other* laws, but then *those* laws will have no 'reason' for them.

I suspect you are wanting some sort of 'mechanism' that is based on a classical concept of particles and composition that is simply false. THis is where metaphysical assumptions about how things 'must be' lead to problems: the universe may not agree that it 'must be' how you think it should be.

good stuff ... I get ya.  But I think you are looking at an end game that I am not really looking for.  I am only interested in how the universe works.  you got one thing right, if you give me a mechanism I will certainly entertain it for more than I will the statement that energy is a vector competent in special relativity, four-momentum.
 

And part of my point is that 'mechanism' is, in and of itself, a metaphysical position that has been shown to be wrong. Quantum mechanics has shown the mechanistic perspective to be wrong.

[Anomalocaris]

Well, let me put it this way. What *sort* of answer to the question 'what is energy' would you consider to be appropriate? Even a ballpark example where what 'something is' is answered in a way you find to be acceptable.

From what I can see, to ask what something 'is' isn't usually a reasonable question. We can ask for its composition (if it is made of other things) or its properties (how it works), but asking for what it 'is' in some metaphysical sense is BS.

There are a couple of general ways of defining energy. Perhaps the best is that it is the conserved quantity derived from Noether's Theorem when the laws of physics are time invariant. In those cases where the laws are NOT time invariant, energy can't even be defined. In those cases where the laws 8are* invariant, itNoether's law gives a good definition.

And it turns out to be that fourth component of the energy-momentum vector because usually time invariance also comes along with location invariance, which gives momentum conservation.

When you say we don't know why QM works, it seems to me that you have things exactly backwards. QM is the *answer* to how things work. And it seems to be fundamental, which means it has no underlying 'reason' for 'why' it is the way it is.

Now, it is possible some future modification of our understanding will have QM as a consequence of some *other* laws, but then *those* laws will have no 'reason' for them.

I suspect you are wanting some sort of 'mechanism' that is based on a classical concept of particles and composition that is simply false. THis is where metaphysical assumptions about how things 'must be' lead to problems: the universe may not agree that it 'must be' how you think it should be.

good stuff ... I get ya.  But I think you are looking at an end game that I am not really looking for.  I am only interested in how the universe works.  you got one thing right, if you give me a mechanism I will certainly entertain it for more than I will the statement that energy is a vector competent in special relativity, four-momentum.
 
yes, I agree to everything else you said.  I was only pointing out your statement about what energy is being wrong.  At best, its a property that allows us to do work.  Its not fundamental in that it based on the properties of other "volumes of space/time".  That being potential differences due to the states of those volumes.  for example: Like + or -  charges 
 
It (energy) looks like its just a way to describe the different volumes relative to each other.  But I am no particle physicist and I haven't done a lerneze transformation in over 25 years. lol, 10 years has long past me by. 
 
I also feel that "time" as a demission is just a useful trick.  Time is just repeating states changes that we can call a tick.  I think they close the gap (very big and very small) when they remove dt.

ps: I know, I should say very fast vs very small, but thats a story for another day.

It seems to me that you would only consider something to be understood if a cause and effect mechanism for its operations can be discerned.    If no cause and effect mechanism is there because the concept is inconsistent with observation,  then you would insist on postulating there must be something at finer granularity there we do not yet know, and not that there may indeed be nothing there for us to know and what is seen is in fact the most granular level of reality.  Is that a fair description?

[polymath257]

good stuff ... I get ya.  But I think you are looking at an end game that I am not really looking for.  I am only interested in how the universe works.  you got one thing right, if you give me a mechanism I will certainly entertain it for more than I will the statement that energy is a vector competent in special relativity, four-momentum.
 
yes, I agree to everything else you said.  I was only pointing out your statement about what energy is being wrong.  At best, its a property that allows us to do work.  Its not fundamental in that it based on the properties of other "volumes of space/time".  That being potential differences due to the states of those volumes.  for example: Like + or -  charges 
 
It (energy) looks like its just a way to describe the different volumes relative to each other.  But I am no particle physicist and I haven't done a lerneze transformation in over 25 years. lol, 10 years has long past me by. 
 
I also feel that "time" as a demission is just a useful trick.  Time is just repeating states changes that we can call a tick.  I think they close the gap (very big and very small) when they remove dt.

ps: I know, I should say very fast vs very small, but thats a story for another day.

It seems to me that you would only consider something to be understood if a cause and effect mechanism for its operations can be discerned.    If no cause and effect mechanism is there because the concept is inconsistent with observation,  then you would insist on postulating there must be something at finer granularity there we do not yet know, and not that there may indeed be nothing there for us to know and what is seen is in fact the most granular level of reality.  Is that a fair description?

And it goes even deeper. What is a 'cause and effect mechanism'? Is gravity itself such a mechanism? Is the fact that we have causal laws in classical mechanics to define and use energy enough to say we have such laws? And what about situations where 'cause and effect' is *known* to be problematic in and of itself?