Confusion between kinetic energy and potential energy

Thread starter RunToFreeForFly
Start date Oct 1, 2004
Tags

Confusion Energy Kinetic Kinetic energy Potential Potential energy

AI Thread Summary

Kinetic energy is defined as the energy associated with motion, specifically related to an object's velocity. In contrast, potential energy refers to the energy associated with an object's position, particularly in relation to gravitational forces. The distinction lies in kinetic energy being linked to movement, while potential energy is tied to an object's location within a gravitational field. Understanding these differences is crucial for grasping fundamental concepts in physics. This clarification helps to eliminate confusion between the two types of energy.

Oct 1, 2004

RunToFreeForFly

What is the different

Physics news on Phys.org

Oct 1, 2004

robphy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Insights Author

Gold Member

You can think of Kinetic Energy as an "energy associated with motion [velocity]".
You can think of Potential Energy as an "energy associated with position".

Oct 1, 2004

expscv

kinetic is got to do with motion ---> velocity

pential energy is generally to do with gravity, which depends on the position of the mass from the centre of gravity

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...

View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

View full post »