Re: Work = energy?

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Feb 17, 4:36 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
I'll go a bit deeper. There are complaints that GR
doesn't handle Conservation of Energy too well, ok.
In our study's one may use instead the Conservation
of Power, think about that.
Here's one of my favorites Ken--
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ExpertIntegral...

Fortunately I caught the error Sam!
A few guys failed to realize that v is a constant
in the LT including of course Dirk VD and likely
you flunked out too Sam, as you foolishly mis-
quoted the context.
Frankly, I think it's idiotic to muddy a fairly good
thread with off-topic misquotations, so *** that.

By equating Power "W_uv" with "g_uv" as defined,
we are able to use the global g_uv;w =0 and place
that into Power as a *global* W_uv;w = 0 , instead
of the GR localized Conservation of Energy.
You don't need to know that Sam, it's a bit heavy
for this thread, Power is a difficult idea for most.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Gee... I always thought "power" was pretty straightforward
and a useful term in thermodynamics.



.

Quantcast