Re: definition of energy (without work?)

[John Denker <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

At 02:11 PM 10/27/99 -0500, Joel Rauber wrote:
> Allow me to play the role of the devil's advocate for a moment.

Halloween is coming soon. OOOWEEEEOOOOoooooOOOO.

> Has Feynman introduced energy without the work concept? Or has he really
> implicitly been thinking of the work concept all along while discussing
> potential energy?

The title of the chapter is "Conservation of Energy".
Nowhere does the argument assume any prior knowledge of what work is.
Energy is not defined in terms of work.
Energy is energy.

The occurrance of the participle "working" on page 4-4 is by no means an
appeal to the concept of work.  It could equally well be replaced by other
vernacular words such as "acting" or "pushing".

I'm reasonably certain :-) he knew about work and was thinking about work.
He just decided that it was secondary and needn't be discussed until nine
chapters later.

Near the top of page 13-3, the concept of work is introduced and defined in
terms of energy.

OOOWEEEEOOOOoooooOOOO......

______________________________________________________________
copyright (C) 1999 John S. Denker             jsd@monmouth.com