Understanding Work and Energy Transfer: The Relationship and Implications

  • Thread starter urtalkinstupid
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Work
In summary, work is the transfer of energy from one physical system to another through the application of a force. It is calculated by multiplying the force and the distance through which an object moves and is expressed in joules, ergs, and foot-pounds. In Scenario 1, a man applies a force of 4N on an object and moves it 2m, resulting in 8 joules of work and energy output. In Scenario 2, the man applies the same force but is unable to move the object, resulting in 0 joules of work and no energy output. In Scenario 3, the force of gravity between the Earth and the moon does not apply work, but it does transfer energy to keep the
  • #71
Entropy said:
Errr... More like ban you guys from the board.

A bit off-topic. But yes, you guys are probably going to get banned if you keep up the pace of refusing to believe simple things.

I know this si theory development, but your goal as a physicist should really be to disprove your theory... it's just SO much easier. And if you can't, then you know that your theory is much better for it than if you'd just risked it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Errr... More like ban you guys from the board.

But yes, you guys are probably going to get banned if you keep up the pace of refusing to believe simple things.

why would they ban us? i thought chroot told me i could be a mentor... :wink:

but your goal as a physicist should really be to disprove your theory...

why would i do that? I'm trying to prove my theory to u guys... i already know there are some flaws in it, but the current model has flaws too. nonetheless, i am going to continue advocating the push theory because i know it's right.
 
  • #73
beatrix kiddo said:
but the current model has flaws too.
This is false. There are no known experiments that contradict the standard model, or general relativity, over their domains.
nonetheless, i am going to continue advocating the push theory because i know it's right.
You know it's right? How do you know this?

- Warren
 
  • #74
There is actually a good contradiction between SR and GR.
 
  • #75
beatrix kiddo said:
why would they ban us? i thought chroot told me i could be a mentor... :wink:

Because of these types of comments. (Yes, I got it, I know)

beatrix kiddo said:
why would i do that? I'm trying to prove my theory to u guys... i already know there are some flaws in it, but the current model has flaws too. nonetheless, i am going to continue advocating the push theory because i know it's right.

By failing to disprove your theory you accumulate evidence towards it's correctness.

I forget who it was that thought that everything he looked at that was a non-black non-raven accumulated evidence that all ravens were black, but I like that logic.
 
  • #76
urtalkinstupid said:
There is actually a good contradiction between SR and GR.

What a waste of a post. At least tell us what they are instead of looking like you've got nothing more than the words.
 
  • #77
urtalkinstupid said:
There is actually a good contradiction between SR and GR.
SR can be derived from GR. Duh.

- Warren
 
  • #78
Ok, you have the elevator experiment that Einstein used for his equivalence principle.

You have one elevator in space and one elevator on earth. Both are being affected by force, but they are different forces. The one on Earth is experiencing force (acceleration) by gravity at a rate of [itex]9.8m/s^2[/itex], while the elevator in space is experiencing accelerated forces at a rate of [itex]9.8m/s^2[/itex]. So, on earth, the acceleration is 1-g. The elevator in space is being accelerated at 1-g equivalence. Therefore, you are unable to tell if you are moving or stationary, right?

Ok, here is how it contradicts with SR. In space, your velocity increase by the appliance of this 1-g force, while on Earth it is unoticeable. So, in space, time will allow you to reach close to the speed of light. What happens as your velocity increases? Yes, your mass increases as well. So, you are able to tell that you are moving by an increase in mass overtime. Your velocity in space will never reach the speed of light, but it will come ever so close, like an asymptote. So, your mass will increase forever as long as you are experiencing this 1-g in space. Thus, you are able to tell if a force is applied by acceleration or gravity by the fact if your mass is increasing or not. Or something like that.

I'm sure you people will find something wrong with this. Just an idea I saw while trying to get information on SR and GR.
 
  • #79
urtalkinstupid said:
Thus, you are able to tell if a force is applied by acceleration or gravity by the fact if your mass is increasing or not.
The mass of a body in its own rest frame is always its rest-mass. You can't tell you're moving unless you look out the proverbial window.

- Warren
 
  • #80
urtalkinstupid said:
Just an idea I saw while trying to get information on SR and GR.
If you're trying to learn, you should try reading books or reputable journals instead of crackpot websites, I guess.

- Warren
 
  • #81
urtalkinstupid said:
Ok, you have the elevator experiment that Einstein used for his equivalence principle.


You have one elevator in space and one elevator on earth. Both are being affected by force, but they are different forces. The one on Earth is experiencing force (acceleration) by gravity at a rate of [itex]9.8m/s^2[/itex], while the elevator in space is experiencing accelerated forces at a rate of [itex]9.8m/s^2[/itex]. So, on earth, the acceleration is 1-g. The elevator in space is being accelerated at 1-g equivalence. Therefore, you are unable to tell if you are moving or stationary, right?

Ok, here is how it contradicts with SR. In space, your velocity increase by the appliance of this 1-g force, while on Earth it is unoticeable. So, in space, time will allow you to reach close to the speed of light. What happens as your velocity increases? Yes, your mass increases as well. So, you are able to tell that you are moving by an increase in mass overtime. Your velocity in space will never reach the speed of light, but it will come ever so close, like an asymptote. So, your mass will increase forever as long as you are experiencing this 1-g in space. Thus, you are able to tell if a force is applied by acceleration or gravity by the fact if your mass is increasing or not. Or something like that.

I'm sure you people will find something wrong with this. Just an idea I saw while trying to get information on SR and GR.

I feel it coming... here we go again
You are always a rest with yourself (please don't argue about moving your arms). So ACCORDING TO YOU you always have your rest mass. ACCORDING TO YOU you are exerting a slightly smaller force on Random-Person than what he percieves.

Although this sounds impossible, length contraction and time dilation (and probably a few other factors) cancel this out. So reality doesn't shatter or anything.
 
  • #82
Books and journals are boring... :zzz:

Length contraction and time dilation seem odd! I just told you I ran into this. This guy also goes more indepth into how length contraction and time dilation are factors that contradict with GR.

P.S. When I said "Energy and Work are related," I meant "Energy and Force are related."
 
  • #83
Alkatran said:
When you use the work equation, you multiply by sin(A), which breaks it down to one of the components of the vector. This component is scalar. (You do it all the time when summing vectors)

Just a quick question, Alkatran. What is forming the angle A that you are using to for the sin ratio? I never had any trig come up in solving Work problems so I am not quite visualising this. Whenever I have calculated Work done, I've just multiplied force x distance and then specified the result as a scalar quantity (I had learned somewhere that the product of two vector quantities will always be scalar). The other way I've calculated Work done it is to integrate a force function over a distance. No trig involved here either.
What gives? Just curious.
 
  • #84
chroot said:
This is false. There are no known experiments that contradict the standard model, or general relativity, over their domains.

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.
 
  • #85
urtalkinstupid said:
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.
While it's true that the predictions of GR and QM are incompatible in places such as the insides of black holes, what I said is that are no known experiments contradict either theory, and that is certainly true.

We certainly have more physics left to discover, but there is nothing wrong with the current theories over their respective domains. Any new physics that is discovered will simply be a generalization of these two theories which widens the domain.

- Warren
 
  • #86
urtalkinstupid said:
Books and journals are boring... :zzz:
You can choose a lifetime of ignorance if that's what you want. :shrug:
Length contraction and time dilation seem odd!
So does Mandarin Chinese to a native English speaker.
This guy also goes more indepth into how length contraction and time dilation are factors that contradict with GR.
Who is "this guy?" Whoever he is, I suspect that he's listed on crank.net for being, well, a crank. Don't believe everything you read. For someone who claims to be a free thinker, you sure do seem to get caught up in other people's malformed claims pretty often.

- Warren
 
  • #87
chroot said:
So does Mandarin Chinese to a native English speaker.

Not necessarily. My friend is Taiwanese, and when she speaks Mandarin, it does not sound odd.

This "guy" looks like he's pretty intelligent. I don't have the link rigth now, because I'm in the lab at college doing my summer course in mechanical engineering. :frown:

I love being ignorant. :uhh:
 
  • #88
urtalkinstupid said:
Not necessarily. My friend is Taiwanese, and when she speaks Mandarin, it does not sound odd.
You understand my point -- that although time dilation and length contraction seem "odd" or counter-intuitive at first, they are not wrong.
This "guy" looks like he's pretty intelligent. I don't have the link rigth now, because I'm in the lab at college doing my summer course in mechanical engineering. :frown:
If he says that GR and SR are incompatible, he is quite stupid. I'm sorry, but it's easy to show how SR falls out of GR, and anyone with an even cursory understanding of the theories can show it.
I love being ignorant. :uhh:
If you eschew books and journals (for whatever reason -- even if they're "boring") and prefer to get your education from crackpots on the internet, you are choosing ignorance.

- Warren
 
  • #89
chroot said:
If you eschew books and journals (for whatever reason -- even if they're "boring") and prefer to get your education from crackpots on the internet, you are choosing ignorance.

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!
 
  • #90
urtalkinstupid said:
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!

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).
 
  • #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... :uhh:
 
  • #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. :rofl:

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.
 

Similar threads

B About verification on Kinetic energy and work
    • Mechanics
Replies
16
Views
1K
What is the Definition of the Joule and How Does it Relate to Energy?
    • Mechanics
Replies
15
Views
1K
I Work Done/Energy Transferred in One Dimensional Collision
    • Mechanics
Replies
5
Views
853
I Work-Energy Theorem for Moving Block and Spring System?
    • Mechanics
Replies
4
Views
1K
Understanding the Work-Energy Theorem
    • Mechanics
Replies
2
Views
15K
B Work done in lifting and lowering an object
    • Mechanics
Replies
34
Views
3K
I Question about transfer of Energy and Momentum in Ballistics
    • Mechanics
Replies
34
Views
2K
I Confusion about the equation KE=1/2mv^2
    • Mechanics
Replies
7
Views
1K
How to work out Joules needed to perform work
    • Mechanics
Replies
16
Views
5K
Help -- I don't understand work
    • Mechanics
Replies
30
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top