I should add that pedagogically, after the WE theorem has been applied to
a conservative force, one might speculate about a broader energy
conservation possibility. But in mechanics the potential function is far
from the energy concept of the FLT - the two are connected only by wild
speculation. The mechanical potential function only enables one to define
a scalar constant of the motion, and to represent certain forces as the
gradient of a potential function - it really (of itself) gives no hint of
the universal FLT - this is rooted in speculation and the generalization
of experiments (Joule).
Bob Sciamanda (W3NLV)
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (em)
trebor@velocity.net http://www.velocity.net/~trebor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Sciamanda" <trebor@VELOCITY.NET>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: conservation of momentum (was Re: Heat as an indestructible
substance)
| In response to your 3:
|
| A) I do not consider cons of energy (1rst Law of Thermo) as a
| generalization of any work-energy theorem of mechanics. The (pseudo) WE
| theorem knows nothing of energy transfer or conservation. It merely
| establishes the line integral of external forces over a system's CM path
| as a numerical monitor of the system's KE increase. It says NOTHING
about
| where that energy came from - it would not even understand that question
| or the concepts of energy sources and sinks. This is the expressed, and
| exclusive, business of the FLT.
|