Re: definition of energy (without work?)

[Joel Rauber <Joel_Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>]

BOO! and other salutations of the season.

> At 02:11 PM 10/27/99 -0500, Joel Rauber wrote:
> > Allow me to play the role of the devil's advocate for a moment.
>
> Halloween is coming soon. OOOWEEEEOOOOoooooOOOO.
>
> > Has Feynman introduced energy without the work concept? Or
> has he really
> > implicitly been thinking of the work concept all along while
> discussing
> > potential energy?
>
> The title of the chapter is "Conservation of Energy".
> Nowhere does the argument assume any prior knowledge of what work is.
> Energy is not defined in terms of work.
> Energy is energy.
>
> The occurrance of the participle "working" on page 4-4 is by
> no means an
> appeal to the concept of work.  It could equally well be
> replaced by other
> vernacular words such as "acting" or "pushing".
>
> I'm reasonably certain :-) he knew about work and was
> thinking about work.
> He just decided that it was secondary and needn't be
> discussed until nine
> chapters later.
>
> Near the top of page 13-3, the concept of work is introduced
> and defined in
> terms of energy.
>
> OOOWEEEEOOOOoooooOOOO......

This "ecclesiastical court" declares Feynman innocent of introducing work
before conservation of energy; as ably defended by council Denker; but notes
with a raised eyebrow that he did use the word "work" in chapter 4; and
we're going to have to keep an eye on that Richard guy.  :-)

Joel