The discussion revolves around the concept of work in the context of energy transformation, particularly focusing on how work relates to potential and kinetic energy during free fall and the implications of forces acting on objects in motion.
Participants express differing views on whether work is always being done on moving objects and the implications of energy transformations in various contexts. No consensus is reached regarding the nature of work and energy in these scenarios.
Some statements rely on assumptions about forces and motion that may not be universally applicable, and the discussion highlights the complexity of defining work in various physical situations.
Yes.mcnealymt said:Can work also be the transformation of energy? For instance, an object in free fall goes from an initial height (that has potential energy) to a final height where there is kinetic energy.
Because all the work does is convert the energy from one form to another.If energy is conserved then how is work being done?
mcnealymt said:Then technically doesn't everything have work being done on it, with the exception of stationary objects.
Never exactly zero, but darn close to it. An object in a close to circular orbit can stay that way for billions of years with little change in energy.Drakkith said:No, an object moving relative to another object, but with no force being applied to it, is not having any work done on it.
That said, this is not possible in real life. All objects have constantly changing forces exerted on them.
russ_watters said:Never exactly zero, but darn close to it. An object in a close to circular orbit can stay that way for billions of years with little change in energy.
Sure, but the change in energy in any of those interactions is vanishingly small over vast periods of time. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong, just that in some cases, the level of precision needed to see an energy loss is really high.Drakkith said:Only in relation to the object it is orbiting around. In real life planets orbit stars, which orbit galaxies, which move in the cosmos. And then you have things like the bazillions of small objects floating through space, all of them influencing us while we do the same to them. Does that sound right?
russ_watters said:Sure, but the change in energy in any of those interactions is vanishingly small over vast periods of time. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong, just that in some cases, the level of precision needed to see an energy loss is really high.