Understanding Work and Energy Transfer: The Relationship and Implications

[urtalkinstupid]

Type of cliff would include it's height from the ground (or core). I've already said that you would have to state the point at which y-position is 0.

 

[JoeWade]

"UrTalk" was saying that ON the cliff, the ball has no potential energy because it's still touching the ground, OFF the cliff it does have potential energy because it has a distance to reach ground

Tom is saying that you're always measuring potential energy to the bottom of the cliff, even if the ball is sitting on the GROUND at the Edge of said cliff.

just clearing up where people are arguing from (which really isn't part of an argument in the first place, i guess we need to re-focus)

 

[urtalkinstupid]

No, that is not what I was saying. Try again.

 

[quantumdude]

Type of cliff would include it's height from the ground (or core).

And as I keep telling you, the height from the ground is all you need to know. You do not need to know anything about the cliff at all. If you took a picture of the bowling ball with a long measuring stick in the background and told me the mass of the ball, and edited out the cliff, I could still tell you what the GPE is with the ground as the datum.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that that the cliff is purely incidental to the setup.

I've already said that you would have to state the point at which y-position is 0.

You're sending mixed signals then, because the "real definition of PE" by itself does not include the datum.

 

[quantumdude]

No, that is not what I was saying. Try again.

That's exactly what you were saying.

 

[urtalkinstupid]

So, is it the type of cliff that is 385m above ground or the type that is 386.3m above the ground?

I simply said that to mess with you people...wow, you people are freaking serious.

 

[chroot]

I simply said that to mess with you people...wow, you people are freaking serious.

Okay, that's enough for me. Wave bye-bye.

- Warren

 

[quantumdude]

I simply said that to mess with you people...wow, you people are freaking serious.

No, you said it because you had a serious misconception about gravitational potential energy, which is why I corrected you. But rather than admit the error and thank me (as I would do in the extremely unlikely event that the shoe is ever on the other foot), you backpeddaled like a know-it-all brat who couldn't possibly make a mistake.

 

[russ_watters]

I simply said that to mess with you people...wow, you people are freaking serious.

Interesting catch-22 you put yourself in there: on the one hand you could admit being wrong, learn something and gain our respect, on the other hand you could admit being a troll and a menace to this forum. Interesting choice you made. But it does simplify our job somewhat...

 

[JoeWade]

i knew they were trolls from day one, but nooooo. no one listens to me...