How Are Joules and Newton's Energy Transfer Related?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ReptileBaird
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between joules and Newtons in energy transfer, specifically addressing the erroneous claim that 5.37498 x 10^31 Newtons equates to 5.37498 x 10^37 joules per meter. Participants unanimously agree that the exponents should match in such conversions, highlighting the inaccuracies in the original statement. The conversation emphasizes the importance of reliable sources for learning physics, as the referenced article contains multiple errors and misleading information.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's Second Law of Motion
  • Familiarity with the SI unit system
  • Basic knowledge of energy units, specifically joules and Newtons
  • Ability to identify and critique scientific sources
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the conversion between Newtons and joules in the context of energy transfer
  • Study Newton's Second Law and its implications in physics
  • Examine reliable physics resources and textbooks for accurate information
  • Explore common errors in scientific articles and how to identify them
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators, and anyone interested in understanding energy transfer and the relationship between different physical units.

ReptileBaird
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
They said this: "Luckily, joules are equivalent to one Newton's energy transfer across one meter of stuff, which means we can still get our answer, since joules are convertible to TNT megatons. 5.37498 x 10^31 Newtons is 5.37498 10^37 joules per meter"

How? shouldn't the exponent be the same for the joules?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Please reference where this statement is taken from.
 
I suggest paying absolutely no attention to that "answer" whatsoever.
 
Orodruin said:
I suggest paying absolutely no attention to that "answer" whatsoever.
ok. why?
 
ReptileBaird said:
ok. why?
Because it contains a large number of erroneous statements.
 
Orodruin said:
Because it contains a large number of erroneous statements.
like the joules not being = to Newtons, but what else?
 
ReptileBaird said:
like the joules not being = to Newtons, but what else?
Isn't that enough?

You yourself pointed out the discrepancy in the exponents of the "conversion".

I suspect the author's degree will be one of those "self-awarded" B.S. degrees - all B.S., no substance.
 
SteamKing said:
Isn't that enough?

You yourself pointed out the discrepancy in the exponents of the "conversion".

I suspect the author's degree will be one of those "self-awarded" B.S. degrees - all B.S., no substance.
so much for a oppterunty to learn things i do not know
 
  • #10
ReptileBaird said:
so much for a oppterunty to learn things i do not know
You have lots of opportunities to learn things you do not know. The internet generally is only a good place to do it if you have reliable resources. Physics Forums has a large amount of knowledgeable members and you will often get great answers. We are not a replacement for a textbook though.
 
  • #11
Orodruin said:
You have lots of opportunities to learn things you do not know. The internet generally is only a good place to do it if you have reliable resources. Physics Forums has a large amount of knowledgeable members and you will often get great answers. We are not a replacement for a textbook though.
becuz u guys don't want to help me learn simple things, because you clearly have your own little clique. w/e I am done here, you guys need to learn how to treat people
 
  • #12
ReptileBaird said:
becuz u guys don't want to help me learn simple things, because you clearly have your own little clique. w/e I am done here, you guys need to learn how to treat people

Nonsense. We just don't feel like pointing out every little error in someone's post online. Did you expect us to?
 
  • #13
ReptileBaird said:
so much for a oppterunty to learn things i do not know
As pointed out, ignore the article.

You have learned something.
The article has errors.
You have pointed out one error.
Posters are agreeing with you.
Thus, you have learned that your own physics knowledge may be better than that of the author.
Thus, move on from that that article.

A blatant error such as the one below shows that the has author has taken as little as possible effort to get, or to make sure, things are correct.
Thanks to Newton and the SI unit system, this is easy to figure out. Newton's Second Law says the Force equals speed times acceleration.
 
  • #14
ReptileBaird said:
5.37498 x 10^31 Newtons is 5.37498 10^37 joules per meter"

How? shouldn't the exponent be the same for the joules?
If this is your question, then yes, the exponents should indeed be equal.
 
  • #15
Orodruin said:
You have lots of opportunities to learn things you do not know. The internet generally is only a good place to do it if you have reliable resources. Physics Forums has a large amount of knowledgeable members and you will often get great answers. We are not a replacement for a textbook though.
ReptileBaird said:
becuz u guys don't want to help me learn simple things, because you clearly have your own little clique. w/e I am done here, you guys need to learn how to treat people
I honestly have a really hard time to imagine how this was the conclusion you drew from my post ...
 
  • #16
Looks like OP has got his answer. His source is unreliable and contains multiple errors.

Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 138 ·
5
Replies
138
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
771
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K