How Do Kinetic and Potential Energy Challenge Newton's Laws?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between kinetic and potential energy and their implications for Newton's laws of motion. Participants explore definitions of work, energy, and the potential flaws in Newtonian physics, engaging in both mathematical reasoning and conceptual clarification.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that kinetic and potential energy are derived from Newtonian physics, presenting equations for work and energy.
  • Another participant challenges the definition of work, emphasizing that it should be expressed as an integral rather than a differential.
  • A different participant points out a potential error in the expression for potential energy, suggesting a missing factor of 2.
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the definitions and relationships between work and energy, questioning the validity of certain mathematical steps.
  • One participant mentions the use of eigenvalues in their calculations and expresses a tendency to simplify concepts to basic principles like F=ma and F=kx.
  • Another participant questions the purpose of the definitions being discussed and seeks clarification on the nature of work and energy.
  • A participant provocatively suggests that Newton's laws may contain flaws, inviting others to consider alternative perspectives.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement, particularly regarding the definitions of work and energy, as well as the interpretation of Newton's laws. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views presented.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion, including potential misunderstandings of mathematical definitions and the implications of integrating versus differentiating work and energy. Some assumptions about the nature of energy and its measurement are also not fully explored.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying physics, particularly in the areas of classical mechanics, energy concepts, and the foundational principles of Newtonian physics.

deda
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
These “types of energy” are pure result of Newtonian physics.
Their common element is the definition for the work done by constant force:
[tex]W = dE = Fdx[/tex]
If the force were variable then the definition would have looked like this:
[tex]W = dE = Fdx + xdF <=> E = Fx[/tex]

The kinetic energy comes out as a combination of this definition with Newton’s second flaw:
[tex]W = dE = Fdx = madx = m \frac{dV}{dt}dx = mVdV[/tex] from where
[tex]E_{kinetic} = \frac {mV^2}{2}[/tex]

The potential energy comes out as combination of the same definition with Newton’s gravity law:
[tex]W = dE = Fdx = \frac {GM_1M_2}{x^2}dx[/tex] from where
[tex]E_{potential} = - \frac {GM_1M_2}{x}[/tex]

What if I tell you that these Newton’s laws are flaw?
http://www.geocities.com/dr_physica/labour.doc

Just like every thing else in Archimedes’s physics energy also has its potential expressed in rather different counter parts than Jules (force is geometrical potential but we don’t measure it in meters).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
But work is not a differential. Work is defined as

[tex]\int{F*dx}[/itex][/tex]
 
deda said:
[tex]E_{potential} = - \frac {GM_1M_2}{x}[/tex]

You missed a factor of 2 there...
 
enigma said:
But work is not a differential. Work is defined as

[tex]\int{F*dx}[/itex][/tex]
[tex] Oh, dear<br /> you kind a confuse me a little.<br /> <br /> [tex]\int_{x_1}^{x_2} Fdx = F (x_2 - x_1) = E_2 - E_1 = \delta E = W[/tex]<br /> [tex]\int_{E_1}^{E_2} dE = E_2 - E_1 = \delta E = W[/tex]<br /> [tex]Fdx = dE[/tex]<br /> <br /> dE is approximatelly E_2 - E_1 when small enough?[/tex]
 
enigma said:
You missed a factor of 2 there...
I think I didn't

[tex](x^{-1})' = -1 x^{-2} dx[/tex]
 
deda said:
Oh, dear
you kind a confuse me a little.

[tex]\int_{x_1}^{x_2} Fdx = F (x_2 - x_1) = E_2 - E_1 = \delta E = W[/tex]
[tex]\int_{E_1}^{E_2} dE = E_2 - E_1 = \delta E = W[/tex]
[tex]Fdx = dE[/tex]

dE is approximatelly E_2 - E_1 when small enough?

Yes, but W != dE, [itex]W = \int_{x1}^{x2}{dE}[/itex]

You're right about the integration. S'wat I get for trying to do calculus at 5am... :frown:
 
You misspelled joules ! But still, if v is an rms phasor e=mv^2 ? naw i guess the 1/2 is still there it is just that i always divide by the potential so it goes away. you know ... 1/2 kx^2. Doesn't everyone use eigenvalues ? i find it so easy to forget the basis when using stuff like FEA or BEM. i just try to remember f=ma and f=kx which solves any problem according to ohms law.
 
Last edited:
what's the point of this definition?

enigma said:
But work is not a differential. Work is defined as

[tex]\int{F*dx}[/itex][/tex]
[tex] You know, I’m rightfully confused here because if [tex]W = \int Fdx[/tex] then differentiated [tex]dW = Fdx[/tex]<br /> [tex]dW = Fdx => limes_{dx -> 0} dW = \delta W = W_2 – W_1[/tex]<br /> What could be that difference of the work done?<br /> Sure it measures in Joules but... is it also some work done or is it energy alone?<br /> <br /> After all let it be whatever and don’t let it drag us away from the subject. That’s how Newtonian physics comes up with kinetic and potential energy. I’m not inventing it. If you have better way of showing it please do. If your result is different from the one presented here then I have little to worry because you are actually on my revolutionary side.<br /> <br /> I REPEAT:<br /> What if I convince you that these Newtonian laws are flaws?[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K