minus is impossible.. destruction
Debate Rounds (3)
I don't think the ideas of subtraction and addition are constrained to the "physical" world like you are putting it. "Minus" is possible in an even broader sense. For example, considering a closed system, quantities belonging to sets can be subtracted or added to those sets, either adding or subtracting quantities from other sets within the same closed system.
If I have a group of 5 apples and a group of 3 oranges sitting in front of me (no matter their arrangements) I can take 2 apples from the set of 5 and add them to the set of oranges.
even if in a closed system electricity behave in the calculated sequences what is actually going on is its changing position.. its not destroyed
hm, well i can minus in my mind, and create.. should have been more specifik perhaps :)
you can take 2 apples from 5 and put them to the oranges but they dont count as oranges
In a closed system electricity (or "electrical energy") changes form, from electric charge to motion or heat or light. The same quantity of "stuff" is still contained in the system, but the energy of the battery has definitely been reduced. Going back to the Apple/Orange annalogy, the fully charged battery is like 5 apples, the ambient temperature is like 3 oranges. 2 of the apples change form, into 1 orange. Now the system contains 3 apples and 4 oranges without breaking any conservation laws. Comparing the first and last states: 5 apples -> 3 apples, subtraction has occured and 2 apples were destroyed in the process.
sure, but im talking about the full electrical circuit for it to exist.. there has to be positive and negative in a circuit for them to make a light bulb shine
hm a battery is not much different to a cd holder.. you take out the cds and its empty
matter can not be destroyed.. im not sure i understand your example, but simply if 2 apples become and orange somehow, that is the apples transforming into an orange.. where else would the orange come from?
If you are meaning to argue for the Law of Conservation of Energy (that energy can not be created or destroyed) it is difficult to debate such a thing, as there really isn't any evidence to support any kind of argument. It would be like arguing that gravity did not exist. There really is nothing to dispute.
I was using the apples/oranges analogy to describe how one form of energy could be converted into a different form, even if the two forms have different "densities", while keeping the law of conservation. I was just trying to show that subtraction was taking place within the apples and conserving all the "energy".
Energy isn't a real, physical, thing. A fast-moving ball "has" energy in the same way it "has" speed. It's more difficult to talk about the transfer of energy in this way so I opted to make an analogy that made energy a physical thing (an apple or orange). It just seemed better than saying something like "some of the speed of the ball is transfered into the volume of the sound created when the ball hits a wall." In that case it seems just as absurd to think speed can transform somehow into sound intensity, as it does to say 2 apples transform somehow into an orange.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 4 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro could not put together a cogent argument. Conversely, Con made their case effectively.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.