Like what IS energy? relative to force

[alodia]

I've been doing basic physics and i understand that to describe the

Kinematics or trajectory/movement of things, we use the relationship between position, displacement, velocity, acceleration, and time

while to describe the
Dynamics or cause of motion, we use the relationship between mass, acceleration, force, distance, energy, work, and time

both when combined will fully describe the mechanics or 'how stuff moves'.

but I'm lost at energy. what is it? i understand is a force is a push or pull, there's only 4 fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear force.

but what is this energy?
- is it like the means to generate a force?
- is it like the blood in your body to fuel a punch or a kick?
- is it like money that a company needs to operate?

now this work thing. are you saying that... since energy is like this internal thing, this much energy can only do so much work.

- this amount of energy can generate a force over some distance?
- this amount of blood can generate a punch or kick over some distance?
- this amount of money can sustain a company over some distance?

and therefore power is... the rate of work... so

- this amount of force over some distance every unit of time?
- this punch or kick over some distance every unit of time?
- this company operating some distance every unit of time?

...

please clarify

thankS!

 

[Jimmy]

You might want to look at this blog entry by ZapperZ:

https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3203

 

[alodia]

thanks but you've given me another rabbit hole rather than some satisfying treat so i can sleep well tonight

 

[Andrew Mason]

I've been doing basic physics and i understand that to describe the

Kinematics or trajectory/movement of things, we use the relationship between position, displacement, velocity, acceleration, and time

while to describe the
Dynamics or cause of motion, we use the relationship between mass, acceleration, force, distance, energy, work, and time

both when combined will fully describe the mechanics or 'how stuff moves'.

but I'm lost at energy. what is it? i understand is a force is a push or pull, there's only 4 fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear force.

but what is this energy?
- is it like the means to generate a force?
- is it like the blood in your body to fuel a punch or a kick?
- is it like money that a company needs to operate?

now this work thing. are you saying that... since energy is like this internal thing, this much energy can only do so much work.

- this amount of energy can generate a force over some distance?
- this amount of blood can generate a punch or kick over some distance?
- this amount of money can sustain a company over some distance?

and therefore power is... the rate of work... so

- this amount of force over some distance every unit of time?
- this punch or kick over some distance every unit of time?
- this company operating some distance every unit of time?

...

Energy is defined as the ability to do work. Work is the application of a force (to a mass) through a distance. This might not be the most appropriate way of looking at energy for purposes in quantum physics, but it is still the best definition.

Changing the speed of a mass requires work. So energy is intimately connected to mass, time and distance. Our concepts of time and distance are tied to the concept of an inertial frame of reference, which requires mass. In a massless universe, energy would not have much meaning.

Energy is a mathematical device to keeping track of the capacity to perform work. Energy is viewed as "something" because it is conserved in all interactions of matter.

AM

 

[Dale]

are you saying that... since energy is like this internal thing, this much energy can only do so much work.

It sounds like you already know what energy is. The usual mechanical definition is "energy is the ability to do work". That is what energy is.

The more important question is, given the fact that you already know what energy is, why do you feel uncomfortable with the concept?

 

[Malverin]

I've been doing basic physics and i understand that to describe the

Kinematics or trajectory/movement of things, we use the relationship between position, displacement, velocity, acceleration, and time

while to describe the
Dynamics or cause of motion, we use the relationship between mass, acceleration, force, distance, energy, work, and time

both when combined will fully describe the mechanics or 'how stuff moves'.

but I'm lost at energy. what is it? i understand is a force is a push or pull, there's only 4 fundamental forces in the universe: gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear force.

but what is this energy?
- is it like the means to generate a force?
- is it like the blood in your body to fuel a punch or a kick?
- is it like money that a company needs to operate?

now this work thing. are you saying that... since energy is like this internal thing, this much energy can only do so much work.

- this amount of energy can generate a force over some distance?
- this amount of blood can generate a punch or kick over some distance?
- this amount of money can sustain a company over some distance?

and therefore power is... the rate of work... so

- this amount of force over some distance every unit of time?
- this punch or kick over some distance every unit of time?
- this company operating some distance every unit of time?

...

please clarify

thankS!

When you apply a Force, you transfer Energy

If you push some object with a Force, it will move or deform.The object will move fast when you apply Force, when it is not heavy and there is a little friction.

The object will deform fast, if it is soft.

The formula that describes connection between Force and Energy is

E= F * V*T = F*S

E => energy

F => force

V => movement (deformation) speed of the object
T => period of time in which you apply the force to the object

S => the distance that object will travel (deform) due to the force

 

[Drakkith]

When you apply a Force, you transfer Energy

Only as long as the object is accelerated. A book pushes down on a table, yet no energy is transferred since neither the book nor the table are accelerated at all.

 

[Oldfart]

Only as long as the object is accelerated. A book pushes down on a table, yet no energy is transferred since neither the book nor the table are accelerated at all.

But the table will be locally accelerated and deformed in way of the book, the table legs will be deformed. the floor in way of the table legs will be deformed, etc. This is easier to visualize if an anvil is placed on the table, but in any case energy is transferred to make these things happen, right?

 

[Malverin]

Only as long as the object is accelerated. A book pushes down on a table, yet no energy is transferred since neither the book nor the table are accelerated at all.

It is deformed when it is not moved. I have written that.

 

[Dale]

But the force continues even though the object does not continue to deform or move.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Only as long as the object is accelerated. A book pushes down on a table, yet no energy is transferred since neither the book nor the table are accelerated at all.

I don't mean to be overly-picky here, but the object can be accelerated without a transfer of energy. If the force/acceleration is perpendicular to the displacement, there is no work done so no energy is transferred.

AM

 

[Malverin]

But the force continues even though the object does not continue to deform or move.

Resultant force will be zero at the end of deformation, because, elastic force will be with equal magnitude and opposite direction of acting force.
So there will be no more deformation and no more work will be done.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't mean to be overly-picky here, but the object can be accelerated without a transfer of energy. If the force/acceleration is perpendicular to the displacement, there is no work done so no energy is transferred.

AM

Absolutely. A planet in a perfectly circular orbit always maintains the same orbital energy.

 

[voko]

Absolutely. A planet in a perfectly circular orbit always maintains the same orbital energy.

Well, not exactly. The planet itself changes its shape somewhat (tides) even in perfect circular motion. And that shape-changing is not elastic, so energy is being lost.

 

[Dale]

Resultant force will be zero at the end of deformation, because, elastic force will be with equal magnitude and opposite direction of acting force.
So there will be no more deformation and no more work will be done.

The resultant force is zero, but the individual forces are still being applied. So it is incorrect to say that when you apply a force you transfer energy. And, as AM correctly pointed out it is possible to apply a non-zero resultant force without transfer of energy also.

 

[alodia]

The resultant force is zero, but the individual forces are still being applied. So it is incorrect to say that when you apply a force you transfer energy. And, as AM correctly pointed out it is possible to apply a non-zero resultant force without transfer of energy also.

if the net force is non-zero, then there must be some change in acceleration, and therefore velocity and therefore transfer of energy. how's it possible to "apply a non-zero resultant force without transfer of energy."??

also, i get the textbook definitions.. but for me and many others who have to understand this from an intuitive perspective, energy just don't make sense. i get force, i can see it, pushing and pulling... but what i don't get is how pushing and pulling transfers some part of me.

like i get heat energy. its just there. no heat no movement. absolutely zero. is kinetic energy same as heat?... what about other forms of energy... there's only 4 forces. but how many energies?

 

[Dale]

if the net force is non-zero, then there must be some change in acceleration, and therefore velocity and therefore transfer of energy. how's it possible to "apply a non-zero resultant force without transfer of energy."??

Uniform circular motion. There is an unbalanced non-zero force (the centripetal force), a non-zero acceleration, a changing velocity, but no transfer of energy.

also, i get the textbook definitions.. but for me and many others who have to understand this from an intuitive perspective, energy just don't make sense.

If you get the textbook definition then you understand energy. There isn't anything more to understand.

The problem isn't that you don't understand energy, it is that energy is such an important concept that you think that there must be some deeper hidden intuitive meaning that you are missing. You aren't. Energy is what the textbooks define it as, nothing more nothing less. It is indeed important, but not mysterious. If you understand the textbook definition of energy then you know what energy is.

 

[alodia]

i think a better question is why is energy necessary? or what was human trying to solve / understand that begets the idea and concept of 'energy'?

because necessity is the mother of all invention, so what was that turning point in history, what was that question or series of events that led to the idea and concept of 'energy'?

 

[Dale]

i think a better question is why is energy necessary? or what was human trying to solve / understand that begets the idea and concept of 'energy'?

because necessity is the mother of all invention, so what was that turning point in history, what was that question or series of events that led to the idea and concept of 'energy'?

Oh, I do like that question. That is indeed a much better question.

I don't know the historical motivation for energy, but one thing that energy does is that it makes analyzing many systems much easier. For example, something sliding down a curved frictionless slide. You can solve such a problem using forces without energy, but you need to know the exact shape of the slide so that you can determine the normal force at each point. With energy, you can solve such a problem much easier. All you need to know is the height of the slide.

In more advanced problems it turns out that conserved quantities like energy are related to symmetries of the system. In the specific case of energy, it is related to time translation symmetry. So if a system is the same today and tomorrow (symmetry) then you know that there is a conserved quantity (energy). That conserved quantity, again, makes analyzing the system easier.

 

[alodia]

Oh, I do like that question. That is indeed a much better question.

I don't know the historical motivation for energy, but one thing that energy does is that it makes analyzing many systems much easier. For example, something sliding down a curved frictionless slide. You can solve such a problem using forces without energy, but you need to know the exact shape of the slide so that you can determine the normal force at each point. With energy, you can solve such a problem much easier. All you need to know is the height of the slide.

yea i saw that khan academy video...i'm getting an inkling that energy is ... some internal stuff that can only be transferred, like in this slide example, and how much stuff you got depends on how much mass you have...

but then I'm confused about how something moving faster has more 'stuff' so something not moving has no stuff? i know when moving is kinetic energy and when stationary is potential... but if there's no height to fall from, then there's no stuff? what if there's no gravity and only masss. a floating mass object in complete vacuum of space with no forces... so no stuff?

 

[Dale]

yea i saw that khan academy video...i'm getting an inkling that energy is ... some internal stuff that can only be transferred, like in this slide example, and how much stuff you got depends on how much mass you have...

but then I'm confused about how something moving faster has more 'stuff' so something not moving has no stuff? i know when moving is kinetic energy and when stationary is potential... but if there's no height to fall from, then there's no stuff? what if there's no gravity and only masss. a floating mass object in complete vacuum of space with no forces... so no stuff?

I am not a big fan of using non-technical words like "stuff" in conversations like this. Since it is non-technical, you would have to give it a technical definition in order to apply it to physics. If that definition is the same as the definition of energy, then it is a duplicate word, and if not, then it is wrong.

Something which is moving can clearly collide with another object and do work. So something which is moving has energy. Something which is elevated can also fall and do work, so something elevated has energy. Something which can be burned can do work, ... Etc. If an object existed which could not do any work, then it would have no energy.

 

[alodia]

what about an objecting in complete vacuum of space under no influence of any forces. does it have energy? does it have kinetic energy? does it have potential energy?

 

[Jimmy]

Richard Feynman said this about energy:

There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law—it is exact so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.

—The Feynman Lectures on Physics​

but then I'm confused about how something moving faster has more 'stuff' so something not moving has no stuff?

The kinetic energy of a mass depends on its velocity and velocity is relative. If you and I are initially at rest relative to one another and I then accelerate to some velocity, relative to me, you will have a non-zero kinetic energy. However, I haven't given you any stuff. If I then match velocities with you, have I somehow taken something away from you?

Feynman's description of energy works just as well for momentum. However, people don't seem to get hung-up over momentum like they do with energy.

 

[Dale]

what about an objecting in complete vacuum of space under no influence of any forces. does it have energy? does it have kinetic energy? does it have potential energy?

Even an object at rest with no potential or kinetic energy still can do work due to its mass, by E=mc^2.

 

[Jimmy]

i think a better question is why is energy necessary? or what was human trying to solve / understand that begets the idea and concept of 'energy'?

because necessity is the mother of all invention, so what was that turning point in history, what was that question or series of events that led to the idea and concept of 'energy'?

The following book might shed some insight:

http://books.google.com/books?id=dq...of Energy Physics"&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false

From the early 1850s the Glasgow professor of natural philosophy, William Thomson (1824--1907), and his ally in engineering science, Macquorn Rankine (1820-72), began replacing an older language of mechanics with terms such as 'actual' and 'potential energy'. In the same period, Rankine constructed a new 'science of thermodynamics' by which engineers could evaluate the imperfections of heat engines of all conceivable varieties. Within a very few years, Thomson and Rankine had been joined by like-minded scientific reformers, most notably the Scottish natural philosophers James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79) and Peter Guthrie Tait (1831-1901) and the engineer FleemingJenkin (1833-85). As individuals, as partners in various scientific or commercial projects, and as an informal group with strong links to the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS),. these 'North British' physicists and engineers were primarily responsible for the construction of the 'science of energy'.

 

[Andrew Mason]

When resultant force is not zero, the object will move or deform.
By orbiting resultant force is zero.

?? Newton's first law says that a body on which no (net) force acts experiences uniform motion (ie. no change in its motion). A body in circular motion is experiencing a constant change in its motion.

AM

 

[Malverin]

?? Newton's first law says that body on which no (net) force acts experiences uniform motion (ie. no change in its motion). A body in circular motion is experiencing a constant change in its motion.

AM

I have deleted this post, because I realized that it will bring a lots of discussing and I don't have much time for that right now. But discussion is already here, so I willl try to explain it simple.

Let there are 2 people, pulling a rope against each other.
There will be a tension in the rope and the people will experience forces, which are with same magnitude and opposite directions.
So the whole system (2 people and the rope) will have zero resultant force.

So let we have a body, that rotates around an axis and there is a rope connecting the body with this axis of rotation.
There will be tension in the rope and there will be 2 forces -> one at the axis and one at the body, which are with same magnintude and with opposite directions.
So the whole system (body, axis and the rope) will have zero resultant force.

 

[Drakkith]

but then I'm confused about how something moving faster has more 'stuff' so something not moving has no stuff? i know when moving is kinetic energy and when stationary is potential... but if there's no height to fall from, then there's no stuff? what if there's no gravity and only masss. a floating mass object in complete vacuum of space with no forces... so no stuff?

Has "stuff" really been transferred? Imagine two particles colliding in otherwise empty space. Both particles can say they see themselves as stationary and the other one approaching. So where's the energy at? Is it divided up? Or does one particle have all of it?

That's why energy is typically said to be "bookkeeping".

 

[alodia]

thanks guys, and thank for jimmy for some references, i'll be checking out that book

 

[Andrew Mason]

I have deleted this post, because I realized that it will bring a lots of discussing and I don't have much time for that right now. But discussion is already here, so I willl try to explain it simple.

Let there are 2 people, pulling a rope against each other.
There will be a tension in the rope and the people will experience forces, which are with same magnitude and opposite directions.
So the whole system (2 people and the rope) will have zero resultant force.

So let we have a body, that rotates around an axis and there is a rope connecting the body with this axis of rotation.
There will be tension in the rope and there will be 2 forces -> one at the axis and one at the body, which are with same magnintude and with opposite directions.
So the whole system (body, axis and the rope) will have zero resultant force.

I understand why you would think that, but it is not correct. There is a resultant force because there is resultant acceleration of the rotating body. It is always directed toward the centre and it is called centripetal acceleration. You will learn about this when you study the physics of circular motion.

AM

 

[Dale]

So the whole system (2 people and the rope) will have zero resultant force.

There is no requirement in physics that you define the system such that there is zero resultant force acting on the system. This argument is fallacious for that reason.

 

[mic*]

The "force" away from the centre (or body in the given scenario) is called the centrifugal effect (not force). It is analogous to being pushed back in your seat when a car accelerates forwards.

 

[Malverin]

I understand why you would think that, but it is not correct. There is a resultant force because there is resultant acceleration of the rotating body. It is always directed toward the center end it is called centripetal acceleration. You will learn about this when you study the physics of circular motion.

AM

There is a force applied to the body, this is the force of the rope, that keeps the body at constant distance(radius) from the axis.
At the other end of the rope there is the same magnitude force with opposite direction. These 2 forces are responsible for the tension in the rope.
There is no tension with only one force.

As Newton says

Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body.

If you think that there is no force acting on the axis, make it from fragile material and it will break when body rotates fast.

 

[Dale]

These 2 forces are responsible for the tension in the rope.

Note that, as you say, there remain 2 forces despite the fact that energy is no longer being transfered. Therefore your original statement "When you apply a Force, you transfer Energy" is clearly wrong.

 

[Malverin]

Note that, as you say, there remain 2 forces despite the fact that energy is no longer being transfered. Therefore your original statement "When you apply a Force, you transfer Energy" is clearly wrong.

It is inaccurate yes.
When resultant force is not zero is more accurate.
Because there will be movement or/and deformation.

 

[Andrew Mason]

There is a force applied to the body, this is the force of the rope, that keeps the body at constant distance(radius) from the axis.
At the other end of the rope there is the same magnitude force with opposite direction. These 2 forces are responsible for the tension in the rope.
There is no tension with only one force.

As Newton says

There is a net force on the rotating body. We know this from Newton's first law.

Yes, Newton's third law applies. Let's make this a simple case of gravitational orbit, such as the moon and Earth orbiting each other, (to make it as simple as possible we will ignore other bodies such as the sun in this example). They both rotate about a common centre of rotation. The Earth exerts a gravitational force on the moon and the moon exerts an equal and opposite gravitational force on the Earth (Newton's Third Law). Since there is only one force acting on the moon and one on the earth, the force on each body is unbalanced (ie the gravitational forces on each are net forces). This means that both bodies must be accelerating toward each other, and this is exactly what occurs.

If you think that there is no force acting on the axis, make it from fragile material and it will break when body rotates fast.

That occurs because the tether is not strong enough to supply the needed force. When it breaks away, there is no force acting on the body at all.

Malverin: your questions are good ones for someone who has not yet formally studied physics. I expect that many scholars before Galileo and Newton asked similar questions. Physics provides answers that has changed the way we look at the world. This is why physics is such an important subject.

AM

 

[Dale]

It is inaccurate yes.
When resultant force is not zero is more accurate.
Because there will be movement or/and deformation.

Even that is incorrect. Uniform circular motion is a counterexample where there is a non zero resultant force on a system with no transfer of energy to or from the system.

Again, a system in physics need not be isolated.

 

[Malverin]

That occurs because the tether is not strong enough to supply the needed force. When it breaks away, there is no force acting on the body at all.AM

I say that the axis will break because a force is applied to it.

And you say it will break, but there is no force, because there is only 1 force and it is applied to the rotating body.
So then axis is broken from nothing. Interesting suggestion

 

[alodia]

Malverin: your questions are good ones for someone who has not yet formally studied physics. I expect that many scholars before Galileo and Newton asked similar questions. Physics provides answers that has changed the way we look at the world. This is why physics is such an important subject.

AM

and this is precisely the problem with education in general today. anyone who needs the education clearly haven't had 'formal studied' before. even if they had, any new knowledge to be learned makes their prior knowledge 'informal' so please it is better to use examples and explain from the 'learner's perspective of knowing NOTHING' rather than the 'scholar's perspective of already having developed one's own system of understanding and just regurgitating what the scholar knows'

 

[Andrew Mason]

I say that the axis will break because a force is applied to it.

The rope will break because the tension in the rope just exceeds, at least for a brief moment, the rope's tensile strength.

And you say it will break, but there is no force, because there is only 1 force and it is applied to the rotating body.
So then axis is broken from nothing. Interesting suggestion

I did not say there was no force on the rotating body before the rope broke. I said there was no force on the body after the rope broke.

AM

 

[Andrew Mason]

and this is precisely the problem with education in general today. anyone who needs the education clearly haven't had 'formal studied' before. even if they had, any new knowledge to be learned makes their prior knowledge 'informal' so please it is better to use examples and explain from the 'learner's perspective of knowing NOTHING' rather than the 'scholar's perspective of already having developed one's own system of understanding and just regurgitating what the scholar knows'

By 'formal' study I meant one that is designed to teach the concepts, details and skills that are needed in order to gain a proper understanding of the subject. One can engage in a formal study of something on their own. But it is usually better if the subject is taught by someone who has that understanding.

AM

 

[Malverin]

The rope will break because the tension in the rope just exceeds, at least for a brief moment, the rope's tensile strength.

I did not say there was no force on the rotating body before the rope broke. I said there was no force on the body after the rope broke.

AM

I have never said that the rope will break! We assume it is strong enough.

I said the axle will break (bend) , but you are just ignoring that fact.

If you don't think it will, you can try and see it for yourself .

And so, what about the axle forces and its breaking(bending) ?

 

[mic*]

and this is precisely the problem with education in general today. anyone who needs the education clearly haven't had 'formal studied' before. even if they had, any new knowledge to be learned makes their prior knowledge 'informal' so please it is better to use examples and explain from the 'learner's perspective of knowing NOTHING' rather than the 'scholar's perspective of already having developed one's own system of understanding and just regurgitating what the scholar knows'

With all due respect alodia, this is a big statement to make considering you haven't made the effort to use capital letters at the start of each sentence. Your grasp of writing tends to suggest you would at least have been taught that much.

AM your response to the above comment was pretty well put in my opinion. However I think you misinterpreted Malverin; "If you think that there is no force acting on the axis, make it from fragile material and it will break when body rotates fast." I would interpret that as referring to the axel.

This is all getting pretty off topic though.

 

[Andrew Mason]

AM your response to the above comment was pretty well put in my opinion. However I think you misinterpreted Malverin; "If you think that there is no force acting on the axis, make it from fragile material and it will break when body rotates fast." I would interpret that as referring to the axel.

It does not really matter if the rope breaks or if the thing it is tied to (the axis - which I assume is some kind of pole mounted on the earth) breaks. The centripetal force required to keep the body rotating exceeds the tensile strength of the material that the body is attached to. At that point the force ends and the body prescribes a straight line path with uniform motion.

I am not sure what Malverin's point is. My original point was that there is no energy being transferred from or to a body that is experiencing uniform circular motion (ie. the application of the central force to the body does not transfer energy). The force has to act through a displacement and since the force is always perpendicular to the change in displacement there is no work being done and no energy transferred.

AM

 

[Dale]

My original point was that there is no energy being transferred from or to a body that is experiencing uniform circular motion by the central force.

I agree. Malverin doesn't seem to recognize that his statement regarding energy and force was wrong. Hopefully the OP wasn't too confused by the resulting tangent.

 

[Malverin]

It does not really matter if the rope breaks or if the thing it is tied to (the axis - which I assume is some kind of pole mounted on the earth) breaks. The centripetal force required to keep the body rotating exceeds the tensile strength of the material that the body is attached to. At that point the force ends and the body prescribes a straight line path with uniform motion.

I am not sure what Malverin's point is. My original point was that there is no energy being transferred from or to a body that is experiencing uniform circular motion (ie. the application of the central force to the body does not transfer energy). The force has to act through a displacement and since the force is always perpendicular to the change in displacement there is no work being done and no energy transferred.

AM

To have a rotation you need at least 3 elements =>

rotating body, another body(axle) and restrictive connection between them(gravitational force. electromagnetic force, rope...)

Without any of these 3 elements, there will be no rotation.
So taking only one of these elements separately is not correct.
And for the 3 elements rusultant force is zero.

Taking only rotating body separately is the same, as when we have 2 people pulling a rope and we take only one of them separately.
He will experience unbalanced force and we could say he is accelerating towards the other man.
The force is not zero. We have an acceleration, but there is no energy transfer.

 

[Andrew Mason]

To have a rotation you need at least 3 elements =>

rotating body, another body(axle) and restrictive connection between them(gravitational force. electromagnetic force, rope...)

Without any of these 3 elements, there will be no rotation.
So taking only one of these elements separately is not correct.
And for the 3 elements rusultant force is zero.

Taking only rotating body separately is the same, as when we have 2 people pulling a rope and we take only one of them separately.
He will experience unbalanced force and we could say he is accelerating towards the other man.
The force is not zero. We have an acceleration, but there is no energy transfer.

Malverin: Are you stating this or asking whether it is correct? Either way, none of this is correct.

In your first example, the resultant force is NOT zero. There is a net force on each body. Consider two bodies in gravitational orbit about their centre of mass. If they were not rotating they would crash into each other. The rotation does not cancel the force that each exerts on the other!

In your second example, there is energy being transferred from the person's muscles to kinetic energy of the person.You appear to be very interested in physics. But you need to read some good physics texts first rather than assume that you can figure it out yourself. You at least have to listen to what others who have studied physics tell you before you assert things. You have to thoroughly understand Newton's laws. You are not applying the laws of motion correctly.

AM

 

[Malverin]

Malverin: Are you stating this or asking whether it is correct? Either way, none of this is correct.

In your first example, the resultant force is NOT zero. There is a net force on each body. Consider two bodies in gravitational orbit about their centre of mass. If they were not rotating they would crash into each other. The rotation does not cancel the force that each exerts on the other!

In your second example, there is energy being transferred from the person's muscles to kinetic energy of the person.You appear to be very interested in physics. But you need to read some good physics texts first rather than assume that you can figure it out yourself. You at least have to listen to what others who have studied physics tell you before you assert things. You have to thoroughly understand Newton's laws. You are not applying the laws of motion correctly.

AM

OK
I see we have to make it visual

Here

Fb => the force applied to the body (centripetal force)

Fr => the force applied to the rope

Fax => the force applied to the axle

So how exactly you are calculating resultant force here and you get non zero result?

 

[Drakkith]

OK
I see we have to make it visual

Here

Fb => the force applied to the body (centripetal force)

Fr => the force applied to the rope

Fax => the force applied to the axle

So how exactly you are calculating resultant force here and you get non zero result?

The issue isn't whether all the forces for the system add up to zero, it's about the force on each object. Take the ball on a tether example. The ball has a force pulling it inward, given by the tether. The ball also exerts an equal amount of force the opposite direction on the tether. But that's it. There are no other forces, so the ball is being pulled inward by the tether with a non-zero net force acting on it.

 

[Malverin]

The issue isn't whether all the forces for the system add up to zero, it's about the force on each object. Take the ball on a tether example. The ball has a force pulling it inward, given by the tether. The ball also exerts an equal amount of force the opposite direction on the tether. But that's it. There are no other forces, so the ball is being pulled inward by the tether with a non-zero net force acting on it.

I have agreed with that at the beginning of discussion.
As I said, there is no rotation without the other 2 elements
So the result what you get when you take only a part of this system is... partial.
Adding/substracting energy to/from one of the elements, changes the energy of the whole system.
So taking only one element and ignoring the others is not correct.