The change between kinetic and potential energy

[grayson]

Before I get into this, I am sorry for saying I was 'lazy' a while back. I was very tired that day and I am not a lazy person. Anyways, imagine you have a two-dimensional line that is just for measuring energy. the more negative you go; the more potential energy is stored. The more positive you go; the more kinetic energy is let out. I was just wandering if there was a way to measure the speed of the KE and PE changing (kinetic and potential).

I was thinking KE+PE t (over time) but it is up to you guys to decide whether it is right or not

[Genady]

16 minutes ago, grayson said:

imagine you have a two-dimensional line

I have trouble doing this.

Dimensions (mathsisfun.com)

[grayson]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

I have trouble doing this.

Dimensions (mathsisfun.com)

Yes I am dumb. I said two dimensions because of paper being "two dimensional" while it really isnt, I just imagine anything on paper as two dimensional

Plus if you want to be einstein, the second dimension is time, or the rate of the energy converitng

Also, tesseracts are not hard to draw. You just draw a Cube and connect the corners as if you were drawing a normal cube

Alvor?

[studiot]

46 minutes ago, grayson said:

Before I get into this, I am sorry for saying I was 'lazy' a while back. I was very tired that day and I am not a lazy person. Anyways, imagine you have a two-dimensional line that is just for measuring energy. the more negative you go; the more potential energy is stored. The more positive you go; the more kinetic energy is let out. I was just wandering if there was a way to measure the speed of the KE and PE changing (kinetic and potential).

I was thinking KE+PE t (over time) but it is up to you guys to decide whether it is right or not

If you would like to

Stop, take a deep breath, and count to 10.

Then try to reformulate your query so others can make sense of it it would be very helpful.

Why do you think total mechanical energy would change over time ?

The law of conservation of energy is actually more fully the law of conservation of mechanical energy of an isolated system and it states that the total mechanical energy of such a system does not chnage over time.

Yet you have not stated what system and circumstances you are applying your thoughts to.

Edited September 2, 2023 by studiot

[grayson]

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

If you would like to

Stop, take a deep breath, and count to 10.

Then try to reformulate your query so others can make sense of it it would be very helpful.

Why do you think total mechanical energy would change over time ?

The law of conservation of energy is actually more fully the law of conservation of mechanical energy of an isolated system and it states that the total mechanical energy of such a system does not chnage over time.

Yet you have not stated what system and circumstances you are applying your thoughts to.

Yes, I know, I kind of assumed that before. It would not change after time, It would stay the same. Which is where the "One dimensional" line would come into play. This could be represented by a number, which is e (We can use Einsteins equation) So, what we do is when is when it goes down, it stores potential energy. And when it goes up, It stores kinetic. So the change of e over time is the number (E t) But this doesn't make sense. I just want to know if there is a unit for the conversion of KE to PE or vice versa

Also, I have just realised I have become obsessed with making physics equations

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, grayson said:

Yes, I know, I kind of assumed that before. It would not change after time, It would stay the same. Which is where the "One dimensional" line would come into play. This could be represented by a number, which is e (We can use Einsteins equation) So, what we do is when is when it goes down, it stores potential energy. And when it goes up, It stores kinetic. So the change of e over time is the number (E t) But this doesn't make sense. I just want to know if there is a unit for the conversion of KE to PE or vice versa

Also, I have just realised I have become obsessed with making physics equations

The conversion of PE to KE (or vice-versa) depends on the internal force that’s present. An object under constant acceleration will convert at a different rate than acceleration from an inverse-square relation.

You should be able to solve for KE or PE as a function of time, for whatever circumstance you have

[grayson]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

The conversion of PE to KE (or vice-versa) depends on the internal force that’s present. An object under constant acceleration will convert at a different rate than acceleration from an inverse-square relation.

You should be able to solve for KE or PE as a function of time, for whatever circumstance you have

Yah, since a spring is a good example of KE and PE, how would you calculate the exact rate of conversion from a spring? It would be so complicated! So (Me being the equation geek) How would you find the rate of conversion with all of these factors?

Also, I didn't know about the conservation law before, but I thought of it. The idea was that, as long as force is applied to an object, the energy would stay the same. Obviously, if you are talking about a pendulum, or a newtons cradle, That is not true; though you can find that the energy would constantly be changing with a pendulum. And even with a spring. The idea is PE + KE. When you apply force (F) To an object, the laws of mechanics apply to it and energy is stored. Even when the object converts its PE to KE, the total e stays the same, because it is all energy. Because of external forces like gravity, or other pesky types of energy, the laws of thermodynamics come into play. That is why we can't make unlimited energy. I dont know If this is thermodynamics or mechanic anymore 

Also, how do we measure potential energy in space? A spring still expands after being contracted; so why does PE only work in gravity?

I solved everything. You have a graphing calculator right? Well, without mechanics and thermodynamics in countability, you can just say f(x)=sin x. The y represents kinetic to potential energy and X represents time. So what I am saying is that ⍙Y (the y value) is the conversion of energy

[Genady]

30 minutes ago, grayson said:

Yah, since a spring is a good example of KE and PE, how would you calculate the exact rate of conversion from a spring? It would be so complicated! So (Me being the equation geek) How would you find the rate of conversion with all of these factors?

Also, I didn't know about the conservation law before, but I thought of it. The idea was that, as long as force is applied to an object, the energy would stay the same. Obviously, if you are talking about a pendulum, or a newtons cradle, That is not true; though you can find that the energy would constantly be changing with a pendulum. And even with a spring. The idea is PE + KE. When you apply force (F) To an object, the laws of mechanics apply to it and energy is stored. Even when the object converts its PE to KE, the total e stays the same, because it is all energy. Because of external forces like gravity, or other pesky types of energy, the laws of thermodynamics come into play. That is why we can't make unlimited energy. I dont know If this is thermodynamics or mechanic anymore 

Also, how do we measure potential energy in space? A spring still expands after being contracted; so why does PE only work in gravity?

I solved everything. You have a graphing calculator right? Well, without mechanics and thermodynamics in countability, you can just say f(x)=sin x. The y represents kinetic to potential energy and X represents time. So what I am saying is that ⍙Y (the y value) is the conversion of energy

The answers are here: Simple harmonic motion - Wikipedia

[studiot]

1 hour ago, grayson said:

Also, I didn't know about the conservation law before, but I thought of it

Which is why you should put in the effort to study some very basic science.

It took thousands of Men thousands of years to develop the knowledge and understanding of Physics that we have today.

How long do you think it would take one man on his/her own ?

 

Guessing is a very very ineficient way.

[grayson]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Which is why you should put in the effort to study some very basic science.

It took thousands of Men thousands of years to develop the knowledge and understanding of Physics that we have today.

How long do you think it would take one man on his/her own ?

 

Guessing is a very very ineficient way.

Well, at first I guessed. I knew mechanics and (a little) thermodynamics. I knew about conversion, but nothing about conservation. So, I came up with it without knowing, and I realized it already existed. I learned something from this! And I love to learn more! But if you want to say that I am guessing, I backed this up with previous evidence. All I did was ask a question; and you decided to do whatever you are doing. I am still learning, and all I will say is I am not old enough to go to college yet. I am not the greatest of the great, I just love to learn. And sometimes I think of a concept. Sometimes it is wrong; sometimes it is right! So all I have to say, is that I backed up my evidence on this one.

All I wanted to know is if there was a unit for measuring conversion of energy over time.

So you can say that "Is there a unit for measuring the conversion of energy" is wrong, but you could also say that is grammatically incorrect

[studiot]

23 minutes ago, grayson said:

All I wanted to know is if there was a unit for measuring conversion of energy over time.

So you can say that "Is there a unit for measuring the conversion of energy" is wrong, but you could also say that is grammatical

This is where some very basic science comes in.

 

You do not need college to know that there are many forms of energy and that all energy is measured in the same units.

So the conversion of one form of energy to another is a quantity of energy, which is still measure in the same units.

 

yes I know that over the centuries there have been many different measurings units for energy, just as with say length measured in feet, inches metres, links, chains furlongs and many more.

But each can be converted into the other by multiplying by a constant factor, as the number of inches is 12 times the number of feet.

Does this help?

[grayson]

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

This is where some very basic science comes in.

 

You do not need college to know that there are many forms of energy and that all energy is measured in the same units.

So the conversion of one form of energy to another is a quantity of energy, which is still measure in the same units.

 

yes I know that over the centuries there have been many different measurings units for energy, just as with say length measured in feet, inches metres, links, chains furlongs and many more.

But each can be converted into the other by multiplying by a constant factor, as the number of inches is 12 times the number of feet.

Does this help?

Is the constant factor mean over time? ⍙Y is just the change of the y axis over time

[swansont]

2 hours ago, grayson said:

Also, how do we measure potential energy in space? A spring still expands after being contracted; so why does PE only work in gravity?

PE is not only for gravity. Any conservative force will work, i.e. there is no dissipative force, such as friction. Electrostatic forces and springs are two prominent examples 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, grayson said:

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Expand  

Is the constant factor mean over time? ⍙Y is just the change of the y axis over time

Time doesn't enter into it.

I foot is identical to 12 inches.

If you prefer 100 cents makes one dollar, period.