THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Really
You car engine produces HP – kW – W or Joule etc…
You can used this energy (J) to drive from A to B, “distance”
But instead using that to motion, you to burn your tyres, without “distance”..
The result is the same; you use energy (J). per second.
You can measure the resistance in Newton, - It can occur either due to wind-resistance, or due to friction between the road and the tyres, - (or due to you forgot to release the handbrake, etc….)
The causes of the resistance are different, and do not necessary need to be connected to distance.
I doesn’t matter how the resistance occurs, - resistance = resistance. If you equalize 10 Newton wind-resistance or 10 Newton road frictions should require the same amount of Joule, right?
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
4 m/s, right?
It all depends upon whether you are pulling a cow or a condition bike.
I believe he's towing the cow with the condition bike.
I'm reasonably certain that he's actually beating it, not towing it. Also, he's mistaken the horse for a cow. He is entirely correct about it being dead though.
I do like how we've gone from tackling the deep mysteries of cutting edge physics to attempting to explain basic high school maths and physics. It's a nice contrast. Advanced relativity and quantum mechanics one minute, force x distance the next.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
That there is one way of calculating energy, - does not necessary excluded that there also are others, - or should be.
Every second it requires energy (J) to equalize a certain force (F).
If the force of gravity was the double, the energy (J) to equalize that gravity (F) also should.
Hence there is a clear proportion between the force (F) and energy it requires to achieve it (J).
Distance is not needed.
Is it really not is possible to say how much energy it require to equalizes a certain force? - It sounds unbelievable.
Hydraulic systems gives some excellent examples of how a small expenditure of energy can give you a huge force.
A 25 ton hydraulic press in the workshop is powered by a small hand pump.
That is, you achieve 250KN by pushing down the handle.
There is no direct relation between energy used and force achieved it is just a question of gearing. Something like energy equals force times distance.
A 25 ton hydraulic press in the workshop is powered by a small hand pump.
That is, you achieve 250KN by pushing down the handle.
There is no direct relation between energy used and force achieved it is just a question of gearing. Something like energy equals force times distance.
I do not know that series, but my google-fu indicate that it is around the right level.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
A problem with that ArcturusA - we have little evidence that Bjarne can understand even the simplest bit of physics. For example he thinks that he can make up equations and assign them any units of measurment he wants.
In fact we have no evidence that he even knows about Wikipedia so:
Work
In physics, mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force acting through a distance. Like energy, it is a scalar quantity, with SI units of joules. The term work was first coined in the 1830s by the French mathematician Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis.[1]
According to the work-energy theorem if an external force acts upon a rigid object, causing its kinetic energy to change from Ek1 to Ek2, then the mechanical work (W) is given by:[2]
where m is the mass of the object and v is the object's velocity.
If the resultant force F on an object acts while the object is displaced a distance d, and the force and displacement act parallel to each other, the mechanical work done on the object is the product of F multiplied by d: [3]
If the force and the displacement are parallel and in the same direction, the mechanical work is positive. If the force and the displacement are parallel but in opposite directions, the mechanical work is negative.
However, if the force and the displacement act perpendicular to each other, zero work is done by the force:[3]
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
I can’t agree to that.
Right.
Wrong, this is just relocation, and doesn’t equalize gravity.
If you mean mean that the atoms always resist to be compressed, then yes.
Right, a force can be maintained independently of energy but so fare I see it, it can also be maintained by energy, and if so you'll have a proptional between F and J
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Nobody cares if you believe it or not,carry on in your own fantasy world.How's the cow dragging coming along?
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Correct.
But you can also do the same job (Equalize a force) with energy, and if doing that you must have proportionally between energy and force.
Last edited:
There is no proportionality, it depends completely on the gearing and does not make sense as E=F*d.
I think you should follow Realitycheck's advice and read up on basic physics.