Space interacts with Mass/energy?

[jajrussel]

On 5/10/2019 at 9:22 AM, swansont said:

How else does one acquire KE?

This was the sobering question. The thing that was bothering me most.

It seemed as if it were magic. Where is the KE coming from? It seemed as if it was just being grabbed out of nothing.

My mind kept/keeps saying impossible! So I was trying to build a scenario of interaction where energy was exchanged, where one wasn't needed. In the meantime I've watched another video that made me reminded me, duh, I was building the scene all wrong. I'm still afraid I'll mess up the explaining... I was trying to build a scene of interaction when all I needed was momentum.

I kept focusing on where does the KE come from. When I should have been focusing on acquisition. Kinda one of those duh moments of realization. The KE comes from the source object. After watching the video I keep wanting to say borrowed, but no I don't think it is borrowed so much as it is accessed through momentum. The object at rest has potential energy. Give the object momentum, and you can access some of that potential energy as KE. So even acquisition is the wrong term, unless it is meant in the sense of acquiring access.

I need to go grab the video link cause it will also show to a small degree how I was trying to design the scenario of interaction, which want needed. I remember watching it before and it is likely where my thoughts got their push. The man is brilliant. I am somewhat lacking, so when I tried using the thoughts I sort of crashed them.

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by jajrussel

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

This was the sobering question. The thing that was bothering me most.

It seemed as if it were magic. Where is the KE coming from? It seemed as if it was just being grabbed out of nothing.

My mind kept/keeps saying impossible! So I was trying to build a scenario of interaction where energy was exchanged, where one wasn't needed. In the meantime I've watched another video that made me reminded me, duh, I was building the scene all wrong. I'm still afraid I'll mess up the explaining... I was trying to build a scene of interaction when all I needed was momentum.

I kept focusing on where does the KE come from. When I should have been focusing on acquisition. Kinda one of those duh moments of realization. The KE comes from the source object. After watching the video I keep wanting to say borrowed, but no I don't think it is borrowed so much as it is accessed through momentum. The object at rest has potential energy. Give the object momentum, and you can access some of that potential energy as KE. So even acquisition is the wrong term, unless it is meant in the sense of acquiring access.

To give an object momentum you must exert a force (looking at this from a classical perspective). In exerting a force, you have an acceleration. A force acting through a distance means work is being done, and work changes the KE or PE of an object. (PE represents work that can be done internal to a system)

 Particle physics is more complicated, as QM is now in play, and we can have new particles appearing and disappearing, but the underlying concept is still there. You need to have some interaction which would be responsible for anything acquiring KE.

[jajrussel]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

To give an object momentum you must exert a force (looking at this from a classical perspective). In exerting a force, you have an acceleration. A force acting through a distance means work is being done, and work changes the KE or PE of an object. (PE represents work that can be done internal to a system)

 Particle physics is more complicated, as QM is now in play, and we can have new particles appearing and disappearing, but the underlying concept is still there. You need to have some interaction which would be responsible for anything acquiring KE.

Sitting QM to the side, but still within reach for a moment. Isn't an object at rest, say a rock on the ground in the state of having a force applied to it? It has potential which I increase by picking it up, so it is kind of cyclic. I'm assuming that it is it's mass that is it's true potential. By using force I gain access to some of  it's potential which I can use to do work? If it is so does it mean that I can define force as a means of accessing an objects potential, as well as a means of doing work?

I'm really glad that no one one the other end can hear me, cause Google/Android just interrupted my wifi connection apparently just to show me that there is another way by which I can sign in to my wifi. Actually I think their intent was to force me to go through the motions so that I would be well acquanted with them thereby learning something. I think half the neighborhood heard, I kinda hope Google heard, so that they can appreciate my appreciation. The good thing is that when I got back to the thread what I had started was restored. The thought of losing what I had started was kind of the catalyst, so now finding things restored I am somewhat ashamed.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, jajrussel said:

Sitting QM to the side, but still within reach for a moment. Isn't an object at rest, say a rock on the ground in the state of having a force applied to it?

Look at newton's laws. The net force is zero — it's not accelerating. The forces acting on it are gravity and whatever contact force is present from the ground. They must cancel.

3 hours ago, jajrussel said:

It has potential which I increase by picking it up, so it is kind of cyclic.

If you pick it up you are doing work on it, which shows up as an increase in potential energy.

3 hours ago, jajrussel said:

I'm assuming that it is it's mass that is it's true potential. By using force I gain access to some of  it's potential which I can use to do work? If it is so does it mean that I can define force as a means of accessing an objects potential, as well as a means of doing work?

If there were no gravity there would be no change in energy. The potential is there because of the existence of a gravitational field. Similarly, there would be potential energy for a charge in an electric field.