Have you considered that there could be no generation of energy going on in such situations, only transfer of energy.

I shall, in the interest of brevity, abandon the Socratic method. Whether through misdirection, or insensibility, it appears that I have failed to communicate the point of the inquiry.

I shall assume as first principles that you are composed of matter, and that you are subject to the ordinary laws which govern the interaction of matter. Now, suppose that you were sitting on a chair (as you are likely doing), preferably one which is capable of supporting your weight without disintegration. Now, I say that, instantaneously, the force of gravitation, acting upon your body, and the normal force generated (no energy is generated, was purported to have been generated, or could possibly be generated) would be equal; or that, if there be a vibration in the bodies, that the average of the two forces would be equal.

I further posit that, due to circumstances implicitly demonstrated in the scenarios above, that the total quantity of matter-energy in any closed system, or in any open system when inputs and outputs are accounted accounted for, shall remain the same.

So then show your class by attempting to ridicule what you don't understand why don't you

I do not entirely understand why you would cite what is obviously ironic, to demonstrate one's idiocy, but I am certain that you have your reasons.

I shall quote myself: "Parroting intelligentsia does not make you a member, merely a tool"

I would not count James Boswell amongst the intelligentsia. Here is a man who contrived at every turn to make himself appear ridiculous, to whom (to quote somebody truly illustrious) "everything, the publication of which would have made another man hang himself, was matter of gay and clamorous exultation".

If one cannot handle having it -rather simply- pointed out that they deal in estimations

An instant is not a quantity of time, or of anything at all. It therefore cannot be dealt with in estimations. This is the premise upon which I have ridiculed your efforts against me.

without making a disingenuous pseudo-intellectual sarcastic reference

I'll concede the latter charge. The first, I suspect, was included to augment the prose, the second made to insult the opponent. I am therefore not inclined to treat them as serious accusations.

they just might be a little too concerned with the level of advancement of one their fantasy RPG characters

I'll have you know that Vokun is a level 81 mage!

Says the bloke who feigns to understand the complex while still struggling to understand the simple.

I am simply extending to you the courtesy, of assuming that you understand what a Platonic Ideal is, and why they are relevant. I could end the empirical debate quite easily, I suspect, by proposing, that the fluctuations of time notwithstanding, the sum of all quantities in the universe remains the same. To remain the same, should be impossible, if the Platonic Ideal of equality were fictional.

No single observation or measurement can verify this, of course. However, the whole sum of observations and measurements that have ever been taken, anywhere, under scientific conditions supports the notion. You could, if you were so inclined, suggest that such a finite number of observations is insufficient, but then such would constitute an attack on empiricism itself, which would not avail you.

I find it funny that you act like an authority on what's scientific and whats pseudo-scientific, and don't seem to be able to tell the difference between informal argumentation and hypothesis!

I am glad that you have profited in some way from this exchange.

You side-step the fact that there is no steady source

I had supposed that fact (for here we agree) to be irrelevant. The very fact that there are intelligible laws which govern waveforms, suggests that there is a Platonic Ideal of equality, and that identical wavelengths are possible.

and never mind the fact that the all the prerequisite conditions of these supposedly perfectly identical waveforms exist only theoretically, that no measurements have been ever made by anyone under such conditions, you nevertheless won't let that stop you from talking like they have.

I don't believe that I suggested that they had been. Obviously, you are attempting to defeat my arguments (and you are at liberty to question whether they constitute arguments) by asking for empirically obtained data which cannot be provided. I find this itself to be disingenuous, for you have yourself agreed that no instrumentation is precise enough to determine equality.

The greater deficiency of your line of inquiry, however, is that it is entirely inefficacious. Obviously, I am arguing on a Platonic plane. The quotation from Euclid, a section of which forms the title of this debate, also dealt with the Platonic plane; I had supposed this to be obvious. The reason for which I am sullying my hands, by the presentation of scenarios which exist within the imperfect world, and to which we must ascribe a degree of uncertainty, owing to the imperfection of our instruments and faculties, is because you give all the indications of being entirely ignorant of what a Platonic Ideal is. You may, indeed, have read of them, or have studied them, but you appear to have been unable to recognise them, when they were the topic of debate.

I write, content in the suspicion that you will likely declare the above to be pseudo-intellectual (though, if Plato and Euclid were pseudo-intellectuals...) or an attempt to change the topic. For this reason, I shall iterate, in unequivocal language, what are my opinions upon the matter of equality. As a footnote, you may take magnitude for quantity, in most cases.

Of the Platonic Equality

I. Forms exist, as do properties and quantities.

II. The same properties may be measured, and expressed in equal units of quantity.

III. To measure, therefore, requires a concept of equality.

IV To measure a quantity or its effects, is the only empirical means of assessing quantity.

V. Therefore empirical measurement, by III and IV, admits discourse of Platonic equality.

Of empirical equality

I. Instrumentation, though marvellously advanced, remains imperfect.

II. Therefore measurements made by instrumentation shall be imperfect.

III. Equality of quantity can only be ascertained with certainty by perfect measurement.

IV. By II and III, equality cannot be empirically, viz, by measurement, proved to exist.

Corollary I. Equality cannot, by the same principle, be empirically proven not to exist.

Of geometry

I. Mathematical tautologies are always true.

II. Geometry is a branch of mathematics.

III. Geometry represents the relationships between real objects and quantities.

IV. Geometry may be and has been used to demonstrate equality in such relationships. See Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Book I, section II, for a choice example.

III. Equality exists in reality.

Of divisibility of quantity

I. Quantities may be measured.

II. Quantities so measured are implicitly divided.

III. The units into which a measured quantity is divided, are equal to one another.

IV. By II and III, every empirical measurement supposes equality to exist, to ensure its own efficacy.

Grand conclusion

Equality exists, and empiricism cannot, without destroying itself, disprove its existence.