I did read your post and it did clearly show that the net work is equal to zero. I was confused because that was in contradiction was a previous answer:
I think I now understand what's going on. To clarify, the net work done is zero because the change in kinetic energy is zero and the...
In reference to the above scenario I'm still a little confused.
One definition for the net work is the change in kinetic energy (Work-Energy Theorem). Since the kinetic energy is the same at t0 and t1 the net work done on the weight equals zero.
Another definition for net work is the...
DaleSpam, just to clarify, what your saying is that I don't expend any chemical energy because the net work on all three objects is zero, and therefore I don't do any work regardless of the frame of reference?
But let's say (relative to the Earth's surface) I lifted the weight at a constant...
But the amount of work I do should correspond to a certain amount of expended chemical energy. So would the amount of chemical energy expended depend on the frame of reference? In other words if I held a five kilogram mass on the surface of the Earth for an hour I would expend 4.9 X 10^9 Joules...
If I stand on the surface of the Earth holding an object from my frame of reference I do no work because the object is at rest and the displacement is zero. However from the frame of reference of a second object moving toward the Earth the first object would be moving up and I would be doing...
Sorry if this is posted in the wrong place, I'm new to this forum.
If an object in negatively charged and it is in oscillating motion is produces light waves which have energy. Does this mean that if I had a negatively charged pendulum in a vacuum (no friction/air resistance) it would...