I understand what you are saying. I even did a bunch of collision problems myself and even worked out the formulas to do calculations for ideal elastic collisions.
I am not confused; all I want is the answer to a simple question.
I'm having trouble getting anyone to understand what I...
I am doing science, it is you who are not. If someone assumed that there was this called energy and came up with the work energy theorem, the scientific method requires checking any testable predictions.
What am I doing? I'm asking to see that experimental evidence. If that is not...
I explained earlier that I saw an electrician wire a motor at 120 volts and 240 volts, the same motor. At 120 volts, the motor used about 10 amperes and at 240 volts it used about 5 amperes. That tells me that the formulas for electrical power are probably right. It also tells me you didn't...
I understand that force x distance has it's uses, and the same is true for force x time. The question is which one is correct for representing mechanical energy.
Electrically, we use watts (volts x amperes) and I have personally witnessed that watts is valid. I have yet to see any...
Can you not see that no one has answered the question? I will go for a run or a walk with my dog but, come on. Think about it, the air track experiment only proves that the math is good but, it also proves that other math is good. If I came up with a "discovery" that was as simple as force...
I have tried and tried to understand why work is force x distance. The closest anyone comes is the experiment with air track. That experiment, when you boil it down, is like dropping a object of known mass. The force acting on it is F=ma which in this case a = g (acceleration due to gravity)...
No one has answered my question and if anyone thinks differently, they may not be as bright or educated as they think.
If no experiment exists that proves mechanical energy is defined by force x distance, then physics is based, at least partially, on faith. A subject that requires faith...
I am continuously surprised by the inability to understand and answer a very simple question.
I just want to examine the experiment that scientists used to decide that work is force x distance.
I know that every website and book on intro physics says it is true but they do not show why it...
Has anyone noticed that I have not gotten my question answered? What is the experimental proof scientists used when they accepted the work energy theorem?
The astronaut and ball example I mentioned earlier was only given to show why there may be reason to question the many websites I visited...
I am well aware that the dimensionality would be different for force x time. When I ask for the scientific evidence for work, I am also asking for the dimensionality of energy. Where did mass x velocity x velocity come from? What is the proof that energy should be that and not something else...
I appreciate the effort everyone is giving but the only thing I need is the experimental proof that scientists used to verify the idea that work (force x distance) should represent energy.
I understand that energy is thing that changes forms and so on. There is no argument with that.
The...
I do see something very strange and I'm very confused as to why no one else saw this before.
The force acting on the astronaut is exactly equal to the force acting on the ball and yet, one of those two things winds up with more kinetic energy. That makes zero sense since both receive the...
There is a big difference in assuming work is scientifically valid compared to how we look at electrical energy.
It is easy to prove electrical energy is correct. I watched an electrician hook up a motor and he had the option of wiring it using 120 volts or 240 volts. At 120 volts the motor...
I might be confused but, isn't one of the ideas about energy that it changes form and it's supposed to be conserved. Last year when I was fooling around with solenoids, I found that I could change electrical energy into what I now know as mechanical energy. After remembering I had done that...
The experiment I'm referring to is the one that uses a table with a pulley and an air track. Basically, I see that this experiment demands that you must accept that work (force x distance) is already a proven fact. If you assume work is scientifically valid, the experiment works (no pun...