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
  • #211
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #212
"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)
 
  • #213
No, that is not what I was saying. Try again.
 
  • #214
urtalkinstupid said:
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.
 
  • #215
urtalkinstupid said:
No, that is not what I was saying. Try again.

That's exactly what you were saying.
 
  • #216
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.
 
  • #217
urtalkinstupid said:
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
 
  • #218
urtalkinstupid said:
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.
 
  • #219
urtalkinstupid said:
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...
 
  • #220
i knew they were trolls from day one, but nooooo. no one listens to me...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top