Coriolis and work
Peter
that work W = F d?
jbriggs444
> Hi! Please, was it really Coriolis the first person who established
> that work W = F d?
It's not the kind of thing that you can establish. Not until you
define "work". And once you've defined work, it's simply true by
definition.
Thus demonstrating that there _is_ such a thing as a stupid question.
Peter
O. K., then who was the first person to define work as F d?
zzbu...@netscape.net
Most likely the same person who defined power as F v.
Which is also most likely person who defined action as an integral
over a holistic space-time curve.
Bill Barber
> Hi! Please, was it really Coriolis the first person who established that
> work W = F d?
I'll be most happy to do your work (get it?) for you --
free of charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_Energy
You should learn how to do these things yourself.
By the way, what is the answer to this question going
to do for you? Will it add just another bit of useless
trivia to your most likely already hefty collection?
Your goal should be to understand how the energy concept
evolved in Western science from initial considerations of
conservation to later ideas of relation to heat and mechanical
work.
Peter
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:12:22 -0800, Peter wrote:
> >workW = F d?
>
> I'll be most happy to do yourwork(get it?) for you --
> free of charge.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_Energy
>
> You should learn how to do these things yourself.
>
> By the way, what is the answer to this question going
> to do for you? Will it add just another bit of useless
> trivia to your most likely already hefty collection?
>
> Your goal should be to understand how the energy concept
> evolved in Western science from initial considerations of
> conservation to later ideas of relation to heat and mechanicalwork.
Thank you very much for the tip. I had been told that Wikipedia was
not trustworthy, but I see that it is not entirely so.
The information I am trying to get is important. It has to do with the
first law of thermodynamics, to which I found exceptions.
PD
I'd be curious what you think the exceptions are.
I'd be willing to make a small wager that what you think are
exceptions are in fact misunderstandings on your part.
Peter
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am so sure of what I say that I would be willing to make a large
wager. But I don't want to do it: it would not be fair for me to take
money from someone who does not know what I do. I have conclusive
theoretical, mathematical, and experimental evidence of what I say. I
have written a short paper about it, but my problem is getting it
published. I feel like the person who first realized that the world is
round, when everybody else thought it was flat. People have not
changed a bit from that time.
PD
"willing to" = "don't want to"
Hmmmm....
> it would not be fair for me to take
> money from someone who does not know what I do. I have conclusive
> theoretical, mathematical, and experimental evidence of what I say.
So you've said before, Peter. So far it has been nothing but basic
misunderstandings.
> I
> have written a short paper about it, but my problem is getting it
> published.
Publish it on a blog. You can make one of those for free. Make sure
you have a copyright declaration on the bottom of each page to protect
your intellectual property.
Then post the link here.
You do not have to be a slave to jumping through anyone else's hoops.
> I feel like the person who first realized that the world is
> round, when everybody else thought it was flat.
I'm sure you do.
Peter
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What would be the purpose of publishing it on a blog? How would it
help me to get it published in a journal? Unless it is published in a
journal, nobody reads it.
PD
If you publish it on a blog, it gets a copyright. Then you can pursue
publication in a journal.
As it is, you are not submitting it to anyone for review, without
which it will not be published in a journal at all.
If it is your hope to get it published in a journal without review,
I'm afraid you're out of luck.
Peter
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wanted arXiv to publish my paper; before submitting it, I got the
endorsement of sixteen of their qualified endorsers. They rejected it
anyway, telling me that I should have it published first in a printed
journal, and then they will publish it. Then I submitted my paper to
one of the Physical Review journals. They rejected it without giving
me any reason. Of course, they never sent it to a referee. It looks
like you have to know somebody to have something published there. I
understand they receive many more papers than those they can publish.
Do you know somebody in Physical Review?
PD
Then publish it on a blog with a copyright notice. This will protect
your intellectual property and allow you to collect review comments,
which you did not receive from Physical Review. Do you want comments
or not? Do you want recommendations on how to make the paper of
interest to Physical Review or not?
> Of course, they never sent it to a referee. It looks
> like you have to know somebody to have something published there.
No, that's not the problem. It's not an insider network.
> I
> understand they receive many more papers than those they can publish.
> Do you know somebody in Physical Review?- Hide quoted text -
Peter
I am not worried about the copyright; I know the law. My e-mail is
poakfield(at)msn.com. Could you send me yours?
PD
Mine is in the header of this post. You do know how to use a
newsreader, no? Even in groups.google.com?
PD
You should not target individual reviewers. You should open it up to a
broader audience. That way you will get more balanced and thorough
feedback. Why are you opposed to creating a free blog, putting the
paper on the blog, and then posting the link here?
Peter
>
> - Show quoted text -
You know that here, like in any group of people, there are some nuts
and a few unsavory characters that I would like to avoid.