| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
From: John Mallinckrodt <ajmallinckro@CSUPOMONA.EDU>I have this paper and am in the process of reading it.
Am. J. Phys., V60, 356-365, (1992).
I've never heard work *defined* this way. Work (in any of itsI see a big difference in defining a quantity and then defining how we *calculate* that quantity. For example, we can define *force* without mentioning how we *calculate* force. I see a similar distinction with work. We should be able to define it conceptually without resorting to equating the *definition* with *how we calculate it*. I'm not yet sure that this distinction can be applied to everything though. For example, *energy* is a simple term that defies easy conceptual definition, but I can certainly quote numerous ways to *calculate* it in different situations. I avoid the *ability to do work* "defintion" for energy because it's pretty much meaningless. I prefer Feynman's definition.
many forms) is conventionally *defined* as a product of some force
with some distance (or, more generally, as a sum of integrals of
infinitesimal such products.) We can then go on to *prove* (using