0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Brilliant! it all works out..Flow = VolumePetrol = EngineVelocity = Acceleration!Well done Thebox...I only replied to equate your 'equations' W = change in energy... so of course it equals energy but not in the way you write and is certainly not even approaching a theory of everything..
No.. If there were no energy.. and then there was.. work has been done.. change in energy = workand one thing.. if you have an '=' it doesnt matter which way round it is since is an EQUALITY.. they are the same.Work is also the change of momentum!.. since.. omg.. its the change in kinetic energy.. omg.. Work is only negative and positive in relation to a frame of reference.. i.e. input work and output work.. this is the principle of thermodynamics.. the conservation of energy.. Think of work like speed.. (actually no don't you will only get confused) depending on your frame of reference you can describe it as positive speed or negative speed.. when what you are actually talking about is velocity. In a nutshell.. Work is the change of energy.. if and i mean IF there was no energy before the big bang.. then the universe is the product of the work the big bang caused i.e. the total change of energy
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN) actually separates this too.. I was trying to use a broad definition to help you being to understandBut since both discuss the transfer of energy from one system to another... consider a heat exchanger transferring heat from one system to another.. this has a duty rated in Watts the same as work done, but we are led away from calling it work since it complicates the matter.I don't need a lecture on the macroscopic and microscopic forms of energy transfers.. I just call these distinctions lies to children. A way of simplifying things to ensure people follow the rules throughout.. but it leads to stupid claims like the above. Work is defined by deltaE whether it be kinetic or potential, and in the same discussion of saying heat transfer is not part of work they show the internal energy changes only by the difference between the heat energy input and the work output of the closed system.. i.e. they equate. but this does not mean this approaches a theory of everything.. it is common sense (until you get deep and dirty with thermodynamics and realise why you segregate them) by the way.. W=F.s is a nice equation.. but it will really not help with 99.9% of energy transfers.. and it does take these into account since it is 100% proven.. and it does take all of that into account since it is measurable and powers what you are writing on at the moment. NO... TRANSFER of energy make work.. yes.. if there is no energy there is no work done.. there cant be.. if you dont have anything to transfer then you can't transfer it.. Imaginary sandwich again! All your thoughts are why this distinction was made to stop you confusing things.. read the wiki page i posted which hopefully will enlighten you on the long range forces and the work entailed. I don't know enough about quantum physics to say that the laws of thermodynamics are clearly operating at that scale but I would be fairly surprised if they don't (it may just need to read more into the law)