Momentum Not Conserved, in the use of a medieval battle flail

No. You clearly stated, "Actualized energy... is what's involved when you do work." That's not the same as saying it is work.

Motion/work.

Not telling me anything new.

Only relative to some other point of reference.

Sure.

I simply liked "actualized energy" as meaning an applied force. It simply makes sense. Now, it's gibberish.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 1 2007, 11:14 PM

My patience is rapidly wearing thin.

I'm beginning to think that Dallas and 5Donut were right about you.

What, precisely, do you think work is, if it's not the process of doing work?

Christ on a crutch, this is stuff they teach to 15 year olds in my part of the world.

I don't get what's so hard about this to understand.

I think:

Work equals work.

Force equals force.

Mass equals mass.

Energy equals energy.

Distance equals distance.

Actualized energy apparently equals work, dependent on how you feel at the moment though.

I think the phrase "actualized energy" should be dropped from the discussion.

I don't appreciate your slights. If you can't be mature about it, leave.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 1 2007, 11:13 PM

Work is energy. I proved this with the dimensional analysis. You did understand what that meant didn't you?

I used the phrase "Actualized energy" to distinguish between...

Well, I suppose to distinguish between energy that is doing work or represents work done, and potential energy which is the potential for work. I have been consistent with my application of the term.

Work is a force applied over a distance.
Work is energy.
Energy is force applied over a distance.
Force is acceleration applied to a mass.

Again, this was the entire point of the dimensional analysis that I performed exclusively for your benefit.

Gravitational Potential Energy, Kinetic Energy, and Work are all measured in the same units.

These units are different from the units that force is measured in.

I don't appreciate your obstinance, and your, well, lying seems an appropriate word. The way you keep focusing on trivialities that with a little application of context should resolve themselves.

My statement that the nature of work and energy is somethign that gets taught to 15 yearolds over here isn't a baseless insult, it's a statement of fact, I could even point you in the direction of the approriate curriculum documents, but somehow, I imagine you're not actually interested.

This isn't your thread, even though you've managed to hijack it and drag it off topic.

I've demonstrated my level of understanding of physics.
That I understand what the equations mean, and can perform dimensional analysis.

I have explained to you in clear, plain english where you're assumptions and conclusions around your thought experiement are in error.

If you can't be inteligent and thoughtful about it, then I suggest that maybe it's you that should leave.

Don't be flip.

The correct definition of "work" (in mechanics) is something like: The amount of energy transferred through the application of force.

It is a scalar quantity.

I recommend dropping that phrase. You can substitute the word "work" when you mean work and "energy" when you mean energy and "potential energy" when you mean potential energy. I know the differences.

More accurately, work is a transference of energy through the application of force.

No, that is work. Energy is the potential to do work. You can measure the energy transference during work, but energy isn't necessarily defined by work.

That one's okay.

I appreciate your effort.

Okay.

It seems to me to be quite apparent that your definition of terms and mine are different. I'm using the standards. What are you using?

I'm always interested in educational materials. My son just received a perfect score on his academic assessment tests. That doesn't happen without parental involvement.

I never said it was. Maybe I should be the one to leave then.

I think you're pretty smart. If I didn't, I wouldn't spend my time with you (considering your apparent lack of civility).

I disagree. You've beat around the bushes, but you haven't hit the squirrel yet. That is to say, I'm not sure you understand my premise. Maybe we should work to define it before we get into anymore esoteric definitions.

That's all I'm asking of you.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 2 2007, 07:41 PM

Suddenly I find myself lacking in the motivation to further participate in this debate.

As I have emphasized in the parts of your last post that i've quoted, you're boasting (although I appreciate the compliment in one part of your last post) and trying to cast aspersions over me and what I have said by nitpicking at trivialities in my occasionaly careless use of language.

If you genuinely believe that I have missed something in my summary

of your thought experiment:

Then name it.

If you think I have missed something, then name it.
If you have a question about something I have said, relevant to this quote, ask it.
If not, accept you were wrong, and admit it.
If you do not believe that you were wrong, show me the calculations and equations that demonstrate that I am wrong.
I will no longer be addressing the irrelevant nitpicky trivialities that you are using to distract from the actual discussion at hand.
Such behaviour is stereotypical of someone who knows they are wrong, but can not admit it.

This post has been edited by Trippy on Sep 3 2007, 08:18 PM

Me either.

Can you even write a post that doesn't include insults and negative insinuations?

Indeed, in every post, when Trippy refutes insults and negative insinuations.

And yet you're avoiding my direct questions.

All you need to do is answer the questions I stated in my previous post.

Nothing says you need to rise to what you consider an insult (even if it was what could be considered a statement of fact).

If you think I'm wrong about what I said about your thought experiment, prove it.

That's all I've asked, and thus far, you've been utterly unable to meet that challenge, instead, you seam to be resorting to diversionary tactics and obfuscation, which, in my experience is the tactics of someone who has been shown to be wrong, but is unable to accept it.

Proove me wrong.
Name and equation.
State an energy source I haven't taken into account in addressing your thought experiment.
State somewhere the energy goes that I haven't taken into account.
Show me an energy flux that can not be accounted for.

You can't.
Because you were wrong.

Meanwhile, Zephir provokes, insinuates, quotes out of context, and regularly resorts to lying.

Nothing says you need to rise to what you consider an insult (even if it was what could be considered a statement of fact).

Apparently not.

Gpe.

If the whole system initially consists of two masses, with zero relative momentum, at a distance of asymptotically zero gravity, they have no relative kinetic energy and no gpe.

If you use rockets to accelerate them toward each other, the whole system still has no relative KE since the rocket exhaust represents a negative KE to the masses' now positive KE. However, as they approach each other they develop gpe.

The gpe creates a positive kinetic energy as it accelerates the two masses together.

The gpe came from nothing. It converts to KE and therefore the positive KE came from nothing.

Energy wasn't conserved.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 5 2007, 08:13 AM

I suspected you would raise this.

It really is a bit of a straw man, but it's an understandable misconception.

GPE increases to a maximum of Zero (as height increases).

I was sure I mentioned this.

If you're going to use rockets, remember that the fuel contains Chemical Potential energy (CPE).

As Fuel is burned, a force is applied, and work is done, and he body is accelerated.
So, chemical potential energy is turned into kinetic energy.

At all times, GPE + CPE + KE + Heat = Constant.

The gpe is irrelevant to the at rest system. It only becomes relevant to the active system.

Which I accounted for in the exhaust as negative KE.

If you include the exhaust in the system, the KE and the momentum of the system remains unchanged.

Gpe isn't observed in the system until it becomes relevant. It just appears, as if by magic. It induces a KE value that wasn't in the system in the beginning.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 6 2007, 04:41 AM

No, you're wrong.
You're blatantly wrong.

GPE is ALWAYS there.

Are you just ignoring the posts where I state that the MAXIMUM GPE an object can have is Zero?

Tell me something.

I have two marbles in a cereal bowl, one marble is in the bottom of the bowl, sitting in the center, the other marble is miraculously precariously perched on the edge of the bowl, which marble do you think has the greatest potential energy?

Hrmmm?

No. I'm not ignoring it.

To clarify, let's say the rockets run just long enough to allow the gravitational bodies to begin attracting.

We can agree that the initial gpe in the system is zero. What happens to the gpe as the masses begin to attract? It attains a negative value.

What happens to gpe after the collision? It disappears! It's zero again!

You're left with only the temperature (which is simply kinetic energy on the molecular and atomic scale). Therefore, the graviatationally induced heat energy essentially just sprang into existence then, right? What is it's source? What is it's symmetry?

Obvously, the one on the edge. However, this is not an isolated system of two masses.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Sep 7 2007, 06:28 AM