The water is RECEIVING the E that the person is adding: Ein-Eout= 0
I explained this in #253. You must have short term memory loss....Then we are having total 2E additional energy in the system, due to input energy E. Is this possible? Is this not violation of conservation of energy?
Genius.Are you implying that the ball will sink?
The water is RECEIVING the E that the person is adding: Ein-Eout= 0
I explained this in #253. You must have short term memory loss.
Do answer my question in post #254 which is in reply to your post #253.
If the person(swimmer) is adding(losing) energy E and water is RECEIVING the E; then how the swimmer(person) is moving forward due to "Reaction-Force" as explained in the example?
wasn't this already answered?
I am NOT kidding, you really appear to have short term memory loss.
The person is converting some of the chemcial potential enegy of their body into kentic energy but a large percentage of the converted potential energy is lost to friction which is putting energy into the water. If the person stops swiming the water friction will stop the person and then all of the energy will go to the water from friction.
What you explained here is basically "transfer of energy from the swimmer to the water". This is "action-force" of the swimmer to the water. As per the example the swimmer does not move due to "action-force".
The swimmer moves due to "reaction-force". So, what about "reaction-force"? How energy transfer is happening in "reaction-force" ?
What exactly is your question?
The swimmer pushes against the water and the reaction force is the water pushing against the swimmmer.
Lol.
hansda, you have misinterpreted CoE to mean that only one change can happen at any one time. There is no "double input energy" here.
Ball A loses energy by that amount and Ball B gains it. CoE.
So, you mean to say, due to action-force ball/mass B gains energy and due to reaction-force ball/mass A loses energy. Correct?
Now consider this example of action-reaction forces for a swimmer.
Who is gaining energy and who is losing energy here?
Your post #253 is incomplete and wrong. If you compare your post with the example of the swimmer, you have only explained action-force of the swimmer. You remain completely silent about the reaction-force.
In other words, your idea of "reaction-force" and the "reaction-force" as explained in the example of swimmer are not matching.
My main question here is: whether action-force and reaction-force as explained in the example are simultaneous or not?
In other words, whether the "energy transfer in action-force(from the swimmer to the water)" and the "energy transfer in reaction-force(from the water to the swimmer)" are simultaneous or not?
from the swimmer's glycogen to the swimmer's body and the water....some energy transfer is happening from the water to the swimmer.
This was my post: (#253)
which I said applies to your question:
I didn't even use the term "action-force". So I have no idea what you're talking about.
I already told you your post #253 does not match with the example of the swimmer. Your post #253 does not apply completely to my post #254.
Yes they are simultaneous.
Please explain how, again. Your last explanation wasn't very clear.
In your post#253, you only considered energy transfer from ball A to ball B. You did not consider energy transfer from ball B to ball A.
If both the energy transfers(from the swimmer to water(E) and from water to swimmer(E)) are simultaneous, then we are having a total energy 2E in the system due to input energy E (which is done by the swimmer to the water).
So, where is the conservation of energy?
You keep saying that wrong: there is only one energy transfer and it is from swimmer to water.If both the energy transfers(from the swimmer to water(E) and from water to swimmer(E)) are simultaneous, then we are having a total energy 2E in the system due to input energy E (which is done by the swimmer to the water).
So, where is the conservation of energy?
There's a net energy transfer from A to B.