XPost: alt.sci.physics, uk.politics.misc, uk.politics.misc

This post is all about an alleged erratum.

F=max = m (v2^2 - v1^2)/2s - this is absolutely OK for me.

Then

Fs= 1/2 (mv2^2) - 1/2 (mv1^2) - this is OK

It is the interpretation of Fs which has the error (alleged).

"In Eq [above] the product Fs is the work done by the net force F and
thus equal to the total work Wtot done by all the forces acting on the particle. The quantity 0.5mv^2 is called the kinetic energy K of the
particle."

Force is not energy.

Mixing up energy and force used to get you a wrap over the knuckles in
school.

This error (alleged) is holding back all technical development using
physics which has a moving part.

Over the last few weeks, I have been posting about gravity as well,
which is related, and any correction here opens up more opportunities -
please feel free to read.

In general, are publishers on the side of evidence, or the status quo? I suggest you read your own textbook and look for the similar.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.sci.physics, uk.politics.misc, uk.politics.misc

On 23 42, Dave wrote:

This post is all about an alleged erratum.

F=max = m (v2^2 - v1^2)/2s - this is absolutely OK for me.

Then

Fs= 1/2 (mv2^2) - 1/2 (mv1^2)  - this is OK

It is the interpretation of Fs which has the error (alleged).

"In Eq [above] the product Fs is the work done by the net force F and
thus equal to the total work  Wtot done by all the forces acting on the particle. The quantity 0.5mv^2 is called the kinetic energy K of the particle."

Force is not energy.

Mixing up energy and force used to get you a wrap over the knuckles in school.

This error (alleged) is holding back all technical development using
physics which has a moving part.

Over the last few weeks, I have been posting about gravity as well,
which is related, and any correction here opens up more opportunities - please feel free to read.

In general, are publishers on the side of evidence, or the status quo? I suggest you read your own textbook and look for the similar.

I can add that no books with technical content should ever be published,
but written longhand. (A slight difference in the production process,
if unfamiliar.) A good example of a longhand book is K&R The C
Programming language - short and sweet.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.sci.physics, uk.politics.misc, uk.politics.misc

On 23 59, Dave wrote:

On 23 42, Dave wrote:

This post is all about an alleged erratum.

F=max = m (v2^2 - v1^2)/2s - this is absolutely OK for me.

Then

Fs= 1/2 (mv2^2) - 1/2 (mv1^2)  - this is OK

It is the interpretation of Fs which has the error (alleged).

"In Eq [above] the product Fs is the work done by the net force F and
thus equal to the total work  Wtot done by all the forces acting on
the particle. The quantity 0.5mv^2 is called the kinetic energy K of
the particle."

Force is not energy.

Mixing up energy and force used to get you a wrap over the knuckles in
school.

This error (alleged) is holding back all technical development using
physics which has a moving part.

Over the last few weeks, I have been posting about gravity as well,
which is related, and any correction here opens up more opportunities
- please feel free to read.

In general, are publishers on the side of evidence, or the status quo?
I suggest you read your own textbook and look for the similar.

I can add that no books with technical content should ever be published,
but written longhand.  (A slight difference in the production process,
if unfamiliar.) A good example of a longhand book is K&R The C
Programming language - short and sweet.

Basically the more people who put on the heat, the sooner this will be
fixed, and things unblocked generally.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)