Still weaseling. Provide the scientific experiment that proves your claim that claim when no work is done then a force can be anything other than zero.
I'm not weaseling at all, everything is laid out in stringent logic based on accepted scientific laws. No breaks in logic, no gaps in logic, no contradictions
Then provide the scientific experiment and its data that enables you to make the claim that no work does not equal no force.
As you keep evading my question, I will ask it again:
Why should I provide an experiment to prove a law or an accepted (by you) formula?
You erroneously equate "your take on things"- your words not mine - with knowledge of the laws of physics yet you consistently are unable to provide any scientific experimental data to back up your gobshoite .
That I - at one time - used the words "my take on things" neither implicates that every comment is "my take" nor does it make "my take" wrong.
W = F x d is not "my take", it is an formula you yourself brought forward as proof.
- F=0 => W=0: d may have any value; e.g. an objectis "coasting" along, no force applied; it will move a distance, but no work is performed.
- d=0 => W=0: F may have any value; e.g. an objectis "held stationary", no movement; force is applied, but no work is performed.
- F=0 and d=0 => W=0: an object remains stationary with no force applied.
There are three valid ways for W to be 0 (3 is somewhat redundant, but it is still a worth being listed).
You are claiming one of them (2) is invalid thereby disagreeing with accepted science (brought forward by yourself).
You are challenging laws of physics (not my take on it), so it is up to you, to come up with an experiment or other prove. Can you?
The laws of physics are not subject to your take on things so show the experimental proof that a rocket engine will be able to convert thermal energy , which is not a force, into kinetic energy able to produce a force in a vacuum.
Give the evasion and gobshoite sophistry a rest - just provide the scientific experiment that contradicts the Joules law which states that thermal energy does no work in a vacuum.
See above, they are, indeed, not. So they are not subject to your take either. Your take "no work => no force" is in conflict with the laws of physics.
As you keep misquoting me:
- I do not question Joule's Law of Free Expansion, why would I need a experiment to agree with Joule's Law?
I'm simply pointing out, that your are using it wrongly ("your take" is in conflict with the laws of physics). - Joule's Law of Free Expansion is not in conflict with rockets working in a vacuum.
- As the chemical reaction is taking place inside the rocket, creating and heating gas inside the rocket, it doesn't even have to do work in a vacuum. Rockets can function in a vacuum, because the external environment is not relevant to them (at least in our context).
- Joule's Law still doesn't apply to any situation, just because "vacuum" mentioned somewhere. It does not apply to how rockets work (as explained in previous posts).
https://sites.google.com/a/jeffcoschools.us/physics-digital-portfolio--cara-jacobs/home/journal/cara-physicsexplorewhatistherelationshipbetweenforceworkanddisplacement
I shouldn't have to ask, but did you even check, whom you are quoting?
"I am 17 years old and currently a high school senior. I created this page to help track, showcase, and reflect on my progress in Physics."
This seems to have been written in 2013.
No offense to the author, but couldn't you find a quote from a more professional, peer reviewed source?
Regardless, what she has posted is correct. Your conclusion, however, is not.
Read the fourth sentence , it states unequivocally that work and force are directly proportional to each other . Now that means in plain language that when one of those is zero then so is the other. What proportion of force could be different if work = 0 and vice versa. You cant have half of zero or three times zero.
I did and it doesn't hint at any sophistry or wrong "take on things" on my side ... it shows, however, that you do not understand proportional functions/relations.
Given two variables x and y, y is directly proportional to x[1]
if there is a non-zero constant k such that y=kx. (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics))
As you correctly noted, you can't usefully half/double/... zero, that is why
k must not be zero.
What your quote is actually saying (if you add basic mathematics) is that if F or d are zero, proportionality is not defined.
Which really makes sense, as the proportionality (k) constant can be expressed as the ratio k=x/y, which is not defined for y=0 (y=W=no work).
Also the first sentence in your reference is "In Physics, work is defined as the result of a force moving an object a certain distance."
=> The result of force
not moving an object is
not work.
To sum it up:
Your reasoning is still faulty und you just made it worse.
iC