Re: Is it necessary or helpful to teach work (W) in introductoryHSphysics? (...

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

Justin Parke wrote:
> Is this analysis basically correct?
...
> I would like to make sure I understand the essence of this debate.  The
> "energy reifiers" claim that energy is not a "thing" and that the only
> "thing" to really pay attention to is *changes in* or *transfers of* energy,
> that is, work.

That's part of it, except for a missing factor of -1.

Most people say that energy _is_ a thing, and that it is
primary and fundamental, and that it flows.  Opponents
call that "reifying" the energy, based on the Latin roots
for "thing-making".

> The other folks claim that energy is a "thing" and work is nothing other than
> *changes in* or *transfers of* energy.

Most people say that work is F dot dx, which is one way
but _not_ the only way to transfer or transform energy.

http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/physics/reality-reductionism.htm

http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/physics/conservative-flow.htm

http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/physics/thermo-laws.htm#sec-energy-con