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] |
Is it not true that by writing K=R*x (A) is effectively saying that 'the
kinetic energy is converted into work'? But work is not a form of energy.
In the spirit of the first misconception (heat and work are forms of energy)
let me say that 'in this situation first K is converted into work then work
is converted into heat. Thus both work and heat are equal to K. Didn't we
learn that conversions of W to Q can often be 100% efficient?'.
are confirmed. Do not jump, I am not saying this will happen. Just pretend
it happens and tell me if this would be an 'experimental verification' of
the mental picture according to which K-->Work-->Heat. If your answer is
What I really want to know is this. Do we say that the idea (K-->W-->dU)
is nonsensical (a misconception, if you wish) because it does not agree
with other formal definitions, or do we say it is nonsensical because it
is in disagreement with experimental facts?
A hypothesis, K-->W-->Q, is a mental model. It is based on observations
we make with thermometers, speedometers and rulers. Is it verifiable or
not? Is it scientific or not? Is it correct or not? Why yes? Why not?