If I understand the principle right, no. We tend to think of it that way because we're normally considering gravity and the effort to fight gravity does involve work but the motion itself, for example in space without gravitational influence, would just hold energy or the potential for work rather than being work. Work itself happens when the energy changes, fighting gravity or falling toward it, impact, whatever. Not really my best area though so feel free to check or argue it.
Similar to what the previous poster said. If you are in a vacuum moving at a certain speed and that speed doesn't change then there is no work being done on the system. So movement doesn't necessarily mean work. Work is a force that acts on a system causing it to move in a certain direction. Think of it this way work is kind of like the thing pushing the ball but it is not the motion of the ball itself. It's the energy that causes the ball to roll. If something is moving and being slowed down, or is moving and then speeds up work is being done on the system. Same thing goes even in a vacuum. Say a block went from being stationary to moving in an instant. Some work must have been done on the block in order to get it to start moving. It really depends on how you define work though. If you mean internal work from the system, or a combination of internal and external work. I kind of assumed you were talking about both internal and external work. I believe this is correct but I'm no physicist so you might want to double check me. In reality though whenever we are moving there is work being done on us and everything around us by millions of different forces.
What I gathered from.your two posts is tjthat all movement IS work, because Tue hypothetical.movement that isn't work, would only.exist by itself.outside of interference from.other energies in Tue universe Or.maybe that's backwards Movement is not.work just as k9s are not dogs Work is movements and dogs are k9s -yuri
I would say no because "work" is considered as something as man made. The wind and weather was here before man and they have motion but they cannot consider it as "work" because they do not have muscles that get tired.
Not exactly. nativetongues can speak for themselves but what I meant and the way I read theirs would suggest that the motion itself in a vacuum and outside of gravitational influence wouldn't involve work, just the potential for work. Any change to that though, in a vacuum or not, would involve work no matter if that change is in direction or speed. When the energy balance is stable over time work isn't being done, when it changes it is being done.
Thanks for the responses, guys. So, work is only considered work when it exerts a force on an object which alters that object's inertial status, i.e., it puts an object into motion or it puts an object at rest. Now, following that, I have one more question, seeing as all motion isn't necessarily work, that is, it's a not a motion that brings about a change in inertial status, I must ask: is all work, motion? *(and this question is different from the op, like a question that originally asks if all humans are mortal, and then proceeds to ask whether all mortals are human?)
Is there any movement in this universe that ultimately isn't affected or stimulated by other energies? Is that even a possibility?
Isn't there some gravitational influence everywhere though? Planets pull on moons, stars pull on planets (and moons, and etc) and black holes pull on all the stars in the galaxy. I guess, somewhere way out in the middle of nowhere in space could possibly be gravity-free, but then there is no movement either i think....
That's a great question, I like it. What's more I hope someone can answer it for us My understanding of the subject is that there are places where gravity can simply be ignored in the same sense as gravity is ignored in quantum physics. Technically it's there but the impact is small enough to not really matter at that level. If that ever actually reaches zero in space or just a small enough amount that it might as well be zero I couldn't say. The last line is great though. We'd first have to ask movement in relation to what, it always comes down to frame of reference. Someone on one planet could see it moving away from them, another maybe toward them while a third saw it as standing still or pacing them. Generally unless otherwise specified it's assumed to be from the observers standpoint. I think we need someone that knows more than me to give solid answers to the rest though, I don't want to put bad info in anyone's head and we're getting past what I'm comfortable with.
I'm saying that movement is the result of work but just because something is moving doesn't inherently mean work is being applied to it, at least in a vacuum. In reality there always gonna be millions of forces, most of which are so weak that they have very little influence on the movement of something. I would say if you apply work to a non moving system then you will always cause it to move but movement doesn't guarantee that work is being done on a system. I guess if would revise my answer to say all work leads to motion, but all motion does not mean that there is work being done on the system. Idk if that makes sense but I think that's the distinction I'm trying to make.
Work is a delta force (change) in the state of matter. Transition of energy placement is friction or falling. PE-->KE and such 😄
Classically speaking, work is associated with a change in motion (acceleration - a vector) when a force is applied to a material particle. It's calculated as the continuous sum of the dot products of the applied (resultant) force vector on a particle in the direction of the resulting motion and the infinitesimal displacement vector at each point along the path.
No, not all motion can be considered work. Building on SlowMo's post, the best example that comes to mind is carrying anything with mass. The infinitesimal work dW is the dot product of the applied force and the infinitesimal displacement vector dr. Assuming you're carrying a given object at a constant velocity, then the force exerted by you is perpendicular to the displacement vector dr and the dot product vanishes, giving you dW = 0, which means that the net sum of all the components of the work (or the integral) must be zero. The best way to intuitively know whether there is work involved in a given system's motion without doing any math is to consider if there is any energy being transferred to the system from an agent. This works for most cases, but can fail in certain tricky cases such as the motion due to a magnetic field.
Another example would be two billiard balls bouncing off each other, although each one's motion changes the net work is 0, ignoring a small amount of friction. But that's a closed system and even so the example isn't perfect. Even though work isn't being done at the moment of collision there still obviously had to be work done to give the ball motion
My thoughts on it: A workforce needs to be applied to get motion started. Once an object is in motion, it needs work to continue motion. unless there is no workforce trying to stop motion. Push a ball (workforce), Although that ball would now go without a continues workforce, other forces would slow that ball down unless you apply more force. Gravity, friction, resistance, even a wall, would be negative force. You'd need more positive then negative force to keep that ball in motion. With enough force, the ball would go thru the negative force. even a wall. Space still has negative forces, heat, particles, gravity, ect.. Unless of course you was able to find the place in our infinite space, that had zero negative forces. lmk when you find it, we'll name it after me! A basket on a shoulder may be going in a horizontal motion, you still need workforce to keep it from negative forces. (more positive then negative)