Timeline for Why is work defined with respect to distance rather than time?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 26, 2018 at 9:25 | vote | accept | Luo Zeyuan | ||
| Dec 26, 2018 at 8:33 | history | edited | John Rennie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Typo
|
| Dec 26, 2018 at 8:32 | comment | added | Jasper | "If the object is now free, e.g. if it's sliding on a rough surface" now->not? | |
| Dec 26, 2018 at 7:50 | history | edited | John Rennie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Tweak
|
| Dec 26, 2018 at 7:12 | comment | added | John Rennie | @LuoZeyuan yes. That doesn't mean we would never consider the motion as a function of time. For example the force could be time dependent or the mass could be time dependent (this happens in rocket flight as fuel mass decreases). But if there's a simple way to do a calculation you should always choose the simple way. | |
| Dec 26, 2018 at 7:05 | comment | added | Luo Zeyuan | Ah I see. So by using the F*s equation, we can summarise the acceleration, velocity and mass of the object under one value, making the calculation much easier. | |
| Dec 26, 2018 at 6:59 | history | answered | John Rennie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |