mathman
27th June 2012 - 08:47 PM
QUOTE (sigbangschmidt+Jun 27 2012, 02:57 PM)
I cleam, that the energy conversation law
is a pure empirical law and not a universell
law.
Only valid in closed systems (abgeschlossene Systeme).
All experimental evidence indicates that conservation of energy (including equivalent mass) holds universally.
If you disagree, you need some evidence.
Robittybob1
27th June 2012 - 10:19 PM
Could you define how you differentiate between a pure empirical law and a universal law.
humy
2nd July 2012 - 09:04 PM
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Jun 27 2012, 10:19 PM)
Could you define how you differentiate between a pure empirical law and a universal law.
I think that depends on what you mean by a “pure empirical law”:
If what you mean by “pure empirical law” is that all KNOWN observations made so far comply with that law then the only possible difference is if that there is an unknown exception to the law that hasn't been observed ( at least not yet ) so is not known in which case that law is not a “universal law” for that reason else the two equate.
But, if what you mean by “pure empirical law” is that all POTENTIAL or POSSIBLE observations that can be made will comply with that law including those not yet known or not yet made then there is NEVER a difference between “pure empirical law” and “universal law”.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.