Re: Why work before energy in texts

[Jim Green <JMGreen@SISNA.COM>]

> Is is correct to say that work "becomes" energy, rather than "produces"
> energy or "results in" energy or some other way of describing the
> sequence? I think what I'm asking is, does W-KE say work and energy are
> *identical* or merely *equal*?

Good point, Larry, to answer your question, consider the source of the W/E
principle (It is not a theorem, it is _derived_ from F=ma by some
route)  In N#2 is force "identical" to mass x acceleration?  There have
been posts here which seem to indicate that the author seems to think
so.   But no, it is not.  OTOH in E=mc^2  for example this _is_ an equivalence


However, I agree that the verb is important in classroom pedagogy.  How
about work increases the magnitude of the energy of the system.

I am not sure why you seem to denigrate the noble quality of "equal" with
"merely".

Jim Green
mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen