Are Newton´s asumptions really true?

@Quehoniaomath,

Simply repeating your logical fallacy doesn't help your argument.

Which meaning of work are you going to use next? Don't work too hard figuring out which fallacy you are using.

As for "insulting" you, I am guessing based on your thinking skills, it isn't your intelligence I insulted.

0 Replies

@engineer,

This is a troll. He posts only to provoke a reaction. He doesn't care if what he says is right. Why gratify him by responding?

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

I wanted to see how inane he would get. Would he really say he would pay someone for "working" to fail to move a rock? That would be hilarious.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

This is a troll. He posts only to provoke a reaction. He doesn't care if what he says is right. Why gratify him by responding?

Because other readers might find our responses helpful. It would be a mistake to think that responses written to a poster are exclusively written for that poster.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

But the man is exhausted! But according to the work equation he hasn't done any work at all, because d=0 so W=0.
Don't you see how stupid it is?

It's not stupid. He hasn't done any work on the stone. At best he has expended power on raising his body temperature and increasing his blood pressure. That requires energy, too.

Quehoniaomath wrote:

You really can't use it this way.

Yes, you can.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

It's not stupid. He hasn't done any work on the stone. At best he has expended power on raising his body temperature and increasing his blood pressure. That requires energy, to

So, he HAS done work! Offcourse he has!
Only, he hasn't moved the stone. That is the only thing one can say.
But he is exhausted because he used a LOT OF ENERGY.

you rely too much on mathematical equations without relating to the real physical world. actually, I think you have replaced the real physical work with math. A very dangerous thing to do, even Tesla warned for that.

It is an easy trap.

3 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

It is an easy trap.

You do seem to fall into the logical fallacy trap quite often. Have you figured it out yet or are you going to equivocate some more?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

You do seem to fall into the logical fallacy trap quite often. Have you figured it out yet or are you going to equivocate some more?

Nope I didn't fall into a logical trap at all, you did, but you don't want to see it.
we both agree, he DID DO WORK.

The used equation is really not fitted as a work detector, it never was
ment that way.
You can use it to calculate work done only if d > 0.
you really can't use it to detect if any work was done at all. that is a ridiculous
use of the equation. Don't use it blindly, please, and think while using these kind of equations.

please don't tell me the man didn't do any work at all.
OR you have to define WORK again and we will see it is a , as it commonly is, a circular argument.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

Nope I didn't fall into a logical trap at all, you did, but you don't want to see it.
we both agree, he DID DO WORK.

Really? When did I agree to that? It seems you now want to make up my argument so you can declare victory. Another attempt at a logical fallacy on your part.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

please don't tell me the man didn't do any work at all.

If I was his boss, that is exactly what I would tell him. So you're going to pay him for his "work" in not moving the rock?

Quehoniaomath wrote:

But he is exhausted because he used a LOT OF ENERGY.

So if I turn my oven on and let it sit there, it is doing work? It is certainly using a lot of energy!

1 Reply

@engineer,

Let me quibble a bit here (although Engineer and others clearly understand the science).

The scientific definition of work is not the same as the common definition of work. Clearly there are connections... but science relies on strict definitions for terms. You can use common examples to explain work, but pretending that the two terms (scientific work and everyday work) are precisely the same thing is misleading at best.

To prove the validity of the science, the scientific definition of work is the one that we should use. My everyday "work" involves sitting in a darkened cubicles hitting tiny plastic keys with my fingers. Comparing this to people who lift boulders seems a little silly.

The scientific definition of work is a force applied over a distance. Let's stick with that one (as a definition).

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quehoniaomath is going by the common definition, though, and he's conflating it with the scientific one, as engineer is humoring him.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I suppose that I am suggesting that Engineer not humor him. It is clear that Quehoniaomath is quite closed minded on the topic.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

So, he HAS done work! Offcourse he has!
Only, he hasn't moved the stone. That is the only thing one can say.
But he is exhausted because he used a LOT OF ENERGY.

The question is where that energy went. While doing work always expends energy, the reverse is not true: Not all energy expenditure ends up producing work. This is a case where the energy goes into things other than work --- probably into raising the guy's own blood pressure and body temperature, as I said in my last post.

Quehoniaomath wrote:

you rely too much on mathematical equations without relating to the real physical world.

The stone isn't moving. No work has been done on it. That's not a mathematical formula, that's just a fact. Your innumeracy is keeping you from articulating an intelligible thought. It's nothing to be proud of.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

My everyday "work" involves sitting in a darkened cubicles hitting tiny plastic keys with my fingers. Comparing this to people who lift boulders seems a little silly.

I agree. But then, I never understood why anyone would pay people to program in Java.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Difference between the first and second law of thermodynamics--reversible verses irreversible work. If someone uses their physicality to move a weight, they do reversible work. If the weight doesn't move their physicality increases the temperature. This is work that cannot be recovered.

Rap

0 Replies

Had he actually taken a physics or engineering class, he would know that someone can do biological work without doing work according to the physics definition, since this question probably always comes up in high school physics and similar introductory classes.

Don't feed the troll. He actually doesn't care whether he's right or wrong. He just wants to get a rise out of you.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

Had he actually taken a physics or engineering class, he would know that someone can do biological work without doing work according to the physics definition, since this question probably always comes up in high school physics and similar introductory classes.

Don't feed the troll. He actually doesn't care whether he's right or wrong. He just wants to get a rise out of you.

you don't read now, do you, I have taking physics class. It really is indoctrination and you see it here too, in the postings.
what you are saying is, is that physics textbooks are right. (well, they are not, and they are not ment to be.), and so, if it is in th e physicsbooks it must be the truth. But alas...

People are using formulas they really don't understand and replace this with any real connection to the physics.
There are a lot of other problems with the 'work equation'. find them.
Try some negatives in the formula and see how stupid it all is.
People here are using this formula in a very abstract way, withoug being bounded to the limits of the real physical world.
An deep error that is made so much times in 'modern physics' it really is unbelievable.
btw 'modern physics' is riddled from top to bottom with logical fallacies.

0 Replies

This thread echoes with the sound of chains being yanked.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

This thread echoes with the sound of chains being yanked.

It seems you can't do better than that? Wink

1 Reply

Are Newton´s asumptions really true?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know