Understanding Work and Energy Transfer: The Relationship and Implications

  • Thread starter Thread starter urtalkinstupid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Work
Click For Summary
Work is defined as the transfer of energy through the application of force over a distance, calculated as the product of force and distance. If no movement occurs, no work is done, leading to the question of energy output despite exertion. Scenarios illustrate that while a person may exert energy without moving an object, the work equation indicates zero output, raising questions about energy conservation. The discussion also touches on gravitational forces, noting that while they exert influence, they do not perform work in the traditional sense as defined by the equation. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of work, energy, and their interrelations in physical systems.
  • #91
Alkatran said:
You're a science fiction fan, yes? Because from what I just read you PREFER reading about theories that are proposed incorrectly (aka, the ones that are most likely to be wrong).

Stereotypes aren't good. No, I do not like science fiction. The Standard model is not yet proven. Just because it is support experimentally and observationally, does not mean it is what is happening.

CAN WE GET BACK TO WORK? No pun intended... :rolleyes:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
urtalkinstupid said:
Just because it is support experimentally and observationally, does not mean it is what is happening.

That's exactly what it means. (or at least suggests)

As I've said before, experiments are what separate the math from the physics.
 
  • #93
I believe experiments incorporate math in them.
 
  • #94
urtalkinstupid said:
I believe experiments incorporate math in them.

But math doesn't incorperate experiments in reality.
 
  • #95
please ban already...

enough from ignorant kids who will read and argue the position of every crackpot website they can find while taking NO effort to learn and understand mainstream physics.
 
  • #96
I don't have the link rigth now, because I'm in the lab at college doing my summer course in mechanical engineering.

Are we suppost to be impressed that you are taking a course at a college, in a lab? Dude all you just implied to us is that you fool around on the internet instead of doing what you're suppost to do at school, learn.

This is false. The standard model does not provide unity among the four fundamental forces. They contradict each other in a sense they are not able to be combined.

Maybe they aren't really unified in reality? Did you ever think of that as a possiblity? We think they all might be one superforce because electricity and magnetism became unified and then electromagnetism with the weak force. Or maybe it does unite them and we just don't "see" how it does yet.

At least their babbling is interesting. Books and journals written by scientists are insipid. The same thing everytime you read them. First, they give you a jist of what they are explaining (abstract I guess). Then, they go into experimental evidence. Then, you have observations. Finally, you have a linking between observations and experiments. BORING!

Damn! If I didn't know better I'd say they're trying to form and then prove a theory! Whats with these "scientists" and their "scientific method" anyways? Why bother looking at the real world when you can preform arrogent and misinformed thought experiments in your own egocentric universe?[/sarcasm]

Look what you just described is the essence of science. If it bores you then you're in the wrong forum.
 
  • #97
Entropy said:
Are we suppost to be impressed that you are taking a course at a college, in a lab? Dude all you just implied to us is that you fool around on the internet instead of doing what you're suppost to do at school, learn.

Hahaha, I get my work done. Though I do internet and work, I'm still able to leave early before everyone else. Unlike them, I know how to work fast. So, implications aren't good.

No, if it bores me, I'm not in the wrong forum. Duh! You people actually explain it in a non-boring way. So, obviously, I'm in the right place.
 
  • #98
Hahaha, I get my work done. Though I do internet and work, I'm still able to leave early before everyone else. Unlike them, I know how to work fast. So, implications aren't good.

Why don't you just leave and go on to the internet at home if you're done with all your work?
 
  • #99
Umm...I am home. I left when i posted the post at 7:37 P.M. Which is an hour early, because class ends at 8:35 P.M. CST. So, whatever. This is clearly off the subject.
 
  • #100
he has a point. if i was a physics teacher i would have already stabbed the both of them...

good work avoiding murder by bringing your ignorance here instead of displaying it to people in the real world
 
  • #101
A true physicists questions everything. He just doesn't go by what is presented before him. He seeks out the true answer of how everything works. Or some BS like that, haha.
 
  • #102
Umm...I am home. I left when i posted the post at 7:37 P.M. Which is an hour early, because class ends at 8:35 P.M. CST. So, whatever. This is clearly off the subject.

Okay, all though I don't know why you wouldn't wait till you got home so you could post that link, this isn't like a chat room where people jump at you if you don't post for a few minutes. In fact the point of forums is that you can take your time figuring out what you need to say and what you need to support it instead of just hastally typing in some responses off the top of you're head.

Anyways, how about that link?
 
Last edited:
  • #103
He just doesn't go by what is presented before him.

Wrong. Everyone's logic and desision-making is based off of everything they're presented with (what they "observe", everything they "observe")
 
  • #104
Oh, Entropy, I love your comical sense of humor. I have more than one link. Hope you people don't get too mad. :smile:

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm
http://members.aol.com/crebigsol/awards.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/RelativityContradiction.html

Look at all of those pseudoscientific sites! Aren't they interesting?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105
Entropy said:
Wrong. Everyone's logic and desision-making is based off of everything they're presented with (what they "observe", everything they "observe")

Wrong. Not all scientists take what was presented before them to be true. Some go beyond that to seek out what is REALLY happening as opposed to what experiments prove to be linked with observations.
 
  • #106
Wrong. Not all scientists take what was presented before them to be true.

Did I say they take them to be true? I said they base decisions off of them.
 
  • #107
Sorry, not all of them base their decisions on what is presented before them.
 
  • #108
urtalkinstupid said:
Sorry, not all of them base their decisions on what is presented before them.

All decisions are based on what's "before you". There's nothing else to base them on! (Everything you know comes from what you've observed)
 
  • #109
uhhh... if u're impressed with stupid and his class, here's what i do:
play video games all night, sleep til 2(pm), and study the push theory! and hours of mind-****ing tv!
why should we be banned? i totally thought this was TD so we can call attention to this new theory.. science HAS to recognize us, because this theory makes TOO much sense! i believe that half the people on this board side with einstein because years and years of brain-washing has taught u to accept anything that guy said... just because he's einstein doesn't mean he didn't have errors... stupid's links call attention to them.. one even had some sweet reward or something? if u are so confident u can make sense of einstein's disastrous ideas, cash in on the benefits! show ppl who are willing to give u money what u know.
 
  • #110
Sorry, I said what I said with the least bit of clarity. What I mean by the stuff is presented before them, is the material that they read about current theories. All scientists don't believe in the current model of physics, although almost all do, but the select few don't.

Alkatran, do you know javascript? I guess you don't, since you didn't reply. :confused:
 
  • #111
Whatever. Back to those sites. I'll start by examining the first site: http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm

[PLAIN said:
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm]The[/PLAIN] special theory of relativity, as developed by Einstein, is directly based on the Lorentz Transformation formula and attempts to transfer the 'equation of motion' for light signals to the space- time coordinates of moving material bodies. Not only is this generalization completely unjustified, but it has to be considered as invalid as the Lorentz- Transformation formula implicitly contains the assumption of the invariance of the velocity (of light) in moving coordinate systems, which obviously does not apply for material objects (for which the classical vectorial addition of velocities holds).

Light does travel at c relative to all observers! Galilean Relativity doesn't hold up, why can't people get it through their skulls? Countless experiments have varified this, you have Einstein's mathematics to back it up, equipment based off this is quite commonplace (and they work) and observations support it! What more do you freaking need?

By the way, me and my Physics teacher almost died laughing at that Alice Law program I downloaded.

The inconsistencies go however further than this and are to some extent already contained in the Lorentz Transformation (as formulated by Einstein): it actually contradicts the invariance of c if one scales the space and time coordinates in order to re-establish a kind of vectorial (albeit normalized) velocity addition for light: the invariance of c strictly means that the time for a light signal to travel from the source to the observer does not depend on the velocity of either of them but only on their distance at the time of the emission (more). As the usual addition of velocities does not apply, the propagation of light has therefore to be considered strictly separately in each reference frame and it is incorrect to map its 'path' in one frame into the other by means of a Galilei- transformation and subsequently 're-normalizing' the velocity of light by scaling the space and time coordinates accordingly (Einstein's basic assumption of identical and synchronized clocks obviously has to imply t'=t). In other words: a contradiction to the invariance of c when using identical space and time coordinates in the two reference frames arises only if one initially chooses the wrong frame for calculating the arrival time of the light signal (two points may coincide mathematically in different frames at a certain time instant, but they are physically not identical as they belong to different objects moving relative to each other). However, important consequences arise from the possibility to pass from one reference frame to the other (by means of acceleration or deceleration), as then the arrival time of the light signal does not only depend on the space point considered but on the whole spatial history of the observer.

Time dilation clears this up.

Einstein's re-scaling of space and time leads to similar nonsense (e.g. the existence of a maximum speed for material objects) as the one applied by the ancient philosopher Zeno of Elea (who 'proved' in his paradoxes that Achilles should be unable to overtake a tortoise, or that an arrow can never reach its target). Any alleged experimental 'evidence' for the existence of length contradiction and time dilation has therefore to be explained by other physical phenomena or instrumental effects (if the observed 'relativistic' behaviour of charged particles in high energy accelerators for instance is indeed real

It has been supported not only microscopicly but also marcoscopicly (astronomical observations), so EM effects don't explain it.

General Relativity describes this phenomenon through the concept of a distorted space around the object rather than a physical interaction with the light wave. This view can however be discounted as logically inconsistent (see Curved Space). On the other hand, it is unreasonable to assume that immaterial and massless objects like light can be in any way subject to a gravitational interaction.
It is much more likely that the propagation of electromagnetic waves is, by their very nature, only affected by electromagnetic forces.

Ha! Light has no rest mass! So if its moving (always at c) it is carring energy/mass. How can someone be taken seriously if they don't know something so fundemental?

The concept of a 'curved space', which is essential for present cosmological models, is logically flawed because space can only be defined by the distance between two objects, which is however by definition always given by a straight line. Mathematicians frequently try to illustrate the properties of 'curved space' through the example of a spherical (or otherwise curved) surface and the associated geometrical relationships. However, a surface is only a mathematical abstraction within the actual (3-dimensional) space and one can in fact connect any two points on the surface of a physical object through a straight line by drilling through it.
Strictly speaking, one can not assign any properties at all to space (or time) as these are the outer forms of existence and it makes as much sense to speak of a 'curved space' as of a 'blue space'. Any such properties must be restricted to objects existing within space and time.

1. He totally fails to see what Einstein was trying to point out. Its not that simple because space is non-Euclidian.

2. No properties to space or time, eh? Apparently he doesn't know that measure and direction are properties. That is really, really sad.


Thats all I'll point out right now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #112
Thought you would get a laugh. At least those sites don't bore you. Is space said to be non-euclidean, because space is curved? I find it hard to believe just because light is bent around a massive object that space is curved.

OFF TOPIC!
 
  • #113
By the way, me and my Physics teacher almost died laughing at that Alice Law program I downloaded.
ur lucky to have a physics teacher who doesn't illegally spank u...

Time dilation clears this up.
hmm.. go into more detail.. for MY benefit.

Ha! Light has no rest mass! So if its moving (always at c) it is carring energy/mass.
yeah.. ok that's kinda bad.. i haven't fully read the site, but I'm hoping he clears that up...?
 
  • #114
At least those sites don't bore you.

If you get a kick out of reading them, fine by me. Just don't bring those audacious claims here with your immature attidute, they aren't welcome. This forum is for real scientific theories. I've disagreed with lots of people's theories but I don't get mad at them because they act in a respectful and objective manner. Even if I think they're horribly wrong I will still stay open-minded as long as they too seem open-minded and seem knowledgeable.

You on the other hand don't care about the truth. You just like to disargee with people. Maybe should focused a little less on trying to win the argument and more on trying to solve the problem.
 
  • #115
If you haven't noticed, no scientific theory is REAL. It is all theoretical, hence "scientific theory." Also, notice this is in THEORY DEVELOPMENT. So, I think I'm in the right place.
 
  • #116
Just don't bring those audacious claims here with your immature attidute, they aren't welcome.

I've disagreed with lots of people's theories but I don't get mad at them because they act in a respectful and objective manner.

how was stupid acting like that? all he said was that those sites didn't bore u..

This forum is for real scientific theories.

this is science at its realest..

Even if I think they're horribly wrong I will still stay open-minded as long as they too seem open-minded and seem knowledgeable.

You on the other hand don't care about the truth. You just like to disargee with people. Maybe should focused a little less on trying to win the argument and more on trying to solve the problem.

u got to be kidding me, right? i had been into SR and GR, but when i found out about the push theory, i was open-minded enough to give it a chance and i realized that it's more logical than a concept of space-time. i do care for the truth, as does stupid, which is why we came here in the first place. it's not about me disagreeing with people. it's about people disagreeing with me :biggrin: problem status nearly solved..
 
  • #117
how was stupid acting like that? all he said was that those sites didn't bore u..

I'm not just talking about his previous post, I'm talking about his over all tone in all his posts.

u got to be kidding me, right? i had been into SR and GR, but when i found out about the push theory, i was open-minded enough to give it a chance and i realized that it's more logical than a concept of space-time. i do care for the truth, as does stupid, which is why we came here in the first place. it's not about me disagreeing with people. it's about people disagreeing with me problem status nearly solved..

I question someone's understanding of SR and GR when they are having trouble grasping the mechanics of elementry force, work and energy.
 
  • #118
1. the current model makes more logical sense than any of these "crank sites" you subscribe to.
2. you're under some kind of delusion that millions of people who make their living working in the field SOMEHOW GOT IT WRONG, and that you with no knowledge of what they're talking about in the first place somehow HAVE A BETTER MODEL (that you copied off THE INTERNET)
3. the only reason you're here is to flaunt your mis-education, you have no interest in actually learning what is right
4. people have pointed out the flaws in your arguments (or i should say copied arguments) time and time again
5. you don't have a theory, why are you here?
 
  • #119
1. It's pretty obvious that the current models have flaws in it. Logic says it's flawed. If the current model was so great, scientist wouldn't be surprised over every little discovery, and they wouldn't be at dismay when something happens that contradicts with what they have proposed.

2. Delusion? Explain why is that scientist are baffled about galaxies that seem to be mature towards the "beginning" of the universe? Explain to me why scientists are in seek of a "Unifying Theory?" Shouldn't everything be compatible, if it is all logic? Yes, I think millions of scientist have wasted their time and still are. Yes, I'll admit at first, I was basically "copying" theories, but now, I build on them what the authors of them haven't. So, have you copied off of a theory? I think you have; you copied off all the ones you believe in.

3. Hmmm...I go to the best high school the state of Arkansas (funny name ugh) has. One of the best school's in the nation (Well, one of my teachers said it was in the newspaper of top ranked schools in the nation). So, I highly doubt i was miseducated.

4. There are flaws in the current theory that scientists are trying to fix. So many flaws have been covered up so cleverly. Cosmological constant for starters.

5. You don't have a theory either. So, why are you here?
 
  • #120
how do you expect to correct the flaws if you don't even understand the very basics of standard model?

crawl before you fly, please.

You don't have a theory either. So, why are you here?

who says i don't? i understand and follow the standard model.
 

Similar threads

B About verification on Kinetic energy and work
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
I Why does the main muscle use the most energy in body movements?
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
What is the Definition of the Joule and How Does it Relate to Energy?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
I Work Done/Energy Transferred in One Dimensional Collision
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Understanding the Work-Energy Theorem
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
16K
How to work out Joules needed to perform work
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
B Work done in lifting and lowering an object
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
I Question about transfer of Energy and Momentum in Ballistics
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Side kick on a falling object, mechanical energy and work
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
I Work-Energy Theorem for Moving Block and Spring System?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K