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] |
I think I am confused here for the same reasons. My understanding is
that the game here is to demonstrate that a conservative force can
increase the TOTAL energy of a system (not just simply do work). I am
having a hard time seeing how the example presented can be an isolated
system.
Now I am beginning to catch on to how our usages of the term "conservative
system" differ.
You seem to be calling a system conservative if there's a way to track the
energy flowing across the system boundary and matching it with the change in
energy inside the system.
I am calling a system conservative if there is a way to
define a total energy for the system that stays constant as the system
evolves.
Conservation of XX means that XX is constant _except_insofar as XX flows
across the boundary of the system." [John Denker]
I understand the idea of local conservation just fine when dealing with
conservation of electric charge. Charge strikes me as real 'stuff' that
moves from place to place, so it can't just pop out of existence in one
place and appear someplace else.
Energy does not seem the same to me. I tend to go back and forth on whether
energy is 'real' or just bookkeeping, but right now I'm going the
bookkeeping route.
Going back to the example of a ball falling in a gravitational field, how do
you locate the energy flow into the system of just the ball? I don't see
how to identify an energy flux across any boundary. If there is one I would
think that the flow must get denser near the ball, because a mathematical
surface enclosing the ball close to the ball's surface has a smaller area
than one enclosing the ball along with some air around it.
Unless there's some way of creating something along the lines of a Poynting
vector for gravitational fields I'm lost here.