John Denker wrote:
"If anybody has an argument (or even an example)
for why the Work/KE theorems are worth the trouble,
I'd be interested to hear it."
I think this controversy is largely semantic, and I don't want to re-open a
messy can of worms, but just let me point out a common example. The analysis
of a free running harmonic oscillator typically exploits the fruitful
statement that the sum of the kinetic energy plus the potential energy is a
constant of the motion. This assertion is simply a literal re-statement of
the "work-energy theorem", in which the "work" of the Hooke's law force is
cast in the role of a potential energy. In Newtonian Mechanics it is the
work energy theorem plus the existence of Curl free forces that give a
logical birth to such KE + PE constancy assertions.
Bob Sciamanda
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (Em)
treborsci@verizon.net
www.sciamanda.com