Speed of Force or 'Transfer of Momentum'

I suggest you upgrade your cranium to increase the processor speed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, there can not be force without energy. Force generates from energy.

Follow this link

This is an example of 'energy without force'. This is not an an example of 'force without energy'.

Here the book and the table will behave as one object. There is no interaction of two objects here in Newtonian Physics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Still no wrong.

That's not an answer. Please state, succinctly, what the answer is or say "I don't know."

No, there is both an energy input and a force input. Heck, the force is stated in the problem statement!

I didn't claim this was an example of energy without force or force without energy. I was providing an easy example to get you moving in the right direction: to make sure you could analyze a simple base case before moving on to the more complicated problem. I guess you can't even understand the simple case.

I didn't ask about the interaction between the book and the table, I asked about the interaction between the book and your hand. Your hand is applying a 1N force on the book. How much power (or energy) is it applying to the book?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you mean "nothing wrong". If that is the case i think you got the point that there can not be any 'force without energy'.

From 'action-reaction' you went to 'orbit'. What point are you trying to prove? Is it 'force without energy'?

As you put the problem, it seems the 'input force' is balanced by 'frictional force'.

Can you tell me what point you are trying to prove here?

Still you could not show an example of 'force without energy'.

I dont think you will be able show that(force without energy), because this simply does not exist in nature.

 

It was a typo. Your understanding of this issue is so bad I said "no" and "wrong" at the same time, which made for an unreadable sentence.

You tell me. Do you know the answer or not? Stop dodging, it is an easy question.

It is, yes. So can you also not answer this question either? Can you not do simple physics problems?

The point will become clear from the answer to the questions. But if it helps, the topic hasn't changed from the relationship between force and energy.

At this point, I'm not sure if you are simply unable to answer simple physics problems or are dodging because you don't like the answers. So please: tell me what the answers are or tell me you don't know how to answer these questions. If you don't know how to answer them, I can help but right now you are just being argumentative.

 

Are you going to say that, "frictional force" is without any energy?

May be they are without energy but they only absorb energy and do not supply any energy. So, "frictional force" can not make a mass move. It can only oppose the movement of a mass.

 

So at this point it is safe to say you can't answer simple physics problems then, right?

Let's start with methods: do you know what equations you need for each? Do you know what the equation that defines work is?

 

The problem is, hansda is making statements not based on logic, but on association between various terms instead.

 

I guess you both have nothing new to explain.

 

Exactly. We have explained to you so many times, but you always twist and botch up our explanations.

Furthermore, you use association to persist in your arguments, without thoroughly thinking about the points we've made.

 

I have explained something new here. That is seeing 'force' from 'energy point of view'. No Newtonian mathematics is affected here.

 

For someone who doesn't want to put in even the tiniest amount of effort, no, I don't want to spoonfeed you any more than I already have. As far as I'm concerned, you are the one making the extraordinary claims, so you should be willing to show, mathematically, that they are correct.

 

Yes, and because it is new, you need to demonstrate it mathematically. Otherwise it is just handwaving.

 

Your reading comprehension skills are seemingly non-existent.

So what if you've said something new? What does that have to do with what I just wrote?

 

I am not making any "extraordinary claims". My claim is simply that "force" as defined by Newton, should be seen from 'energy point of view'. This claim does not contradict "Newtonian Physics". Rather it is very much in-line with "Newtonian Physics". Newton himself explained that, certain "external influence" generates force. This "external influence" is nothing but "energy".

My "energy point of view" follows from "conservation of energy". Here "force" can be considered as 'space derivative of energy'. When 'external energy' is applied to a mass, it will 'change' motion or shape of the mass. From measuring this change "force" generated due application of energy can be calculated. All Newtonian equations remains same here.

 

Not quite. According to Newton ,

\(\vec{F}=\frac{d \vec{p}}{d \tau}\)

so, force is the derivative of the impulse wrt time.

It is true that "work" is defined as the integral:

\(W=\int{\vec{F} d \vec{x}} \)

but this does NOT mean that :

\(\vec{F}\) can be expressed as a "spatial derivative of energy" because \(W\) is a scalar and \(\vec{F}\) is a vector. Only for the particular case when \(\vec{F}\) and \(d\vec{x}\) have the same direction and sense can we write:

\(W=\int{Fdx} \)

 

Also "force" x "distance" = "energy" .

So, "force" = "energy"/"distance".

 

I did not write the post for you, I wrote it for the others. I knew it would be a waste of time to try to correct your misconceptions.

 

Well, applying "energy" to a mass, its momentum also will "change". So, from momentum also force can be calculated.

 

good, you are learning