Timeline for Why can we ignore the work done by gravity?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 15 at 20:41 | vote | accept | Chris Christopherson | ||
| Apr 12 at 10:12 | history | reopened |
gandalf61 Vincent Thacker Thomas Fritsch |
||
| Apr 12 at 9:39 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Apr 12 at 10:12 | |||||
| Apr 12 at 9:39 | comment | added | gandalf61 | Voting to reopen. Clearly not a "do my homework for me" questions since the questioner has done the homework, and wants to understand the concepts behind the correct answer. | |
| Apr 12 at 5:43 | history | closed |
John Rennie hft David Bailey |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Apr 12 at 4:55 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Apr 12 at 4:25 | answer | added | JEB | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 12 at 4:25 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 12 at 5:43 | |||||
| Apr 12 at 4:21 | comment | added | RC_23 | I would try to determine the oscillation amplitude using the equation you think is correct, and see if your answer is different or the same as the book's. | |
| Apr 12 at 4:08 | history | edited | John Rennie |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 12 at 4:03 | comment | added | naturallyInconsistent | It is not non-existent. It is fully captured by the difference in equilibrium position v.s. unstretched position. So that we can use a mathematically much nicer form than one with complications. | |
| Apr 12 at 3:54 | comment | added | Chris Christopherson | @naturallyInconsistent Thanks for the response, but I am still very unsure of how gravity is all of a sudden non-existent in their conservation equation. From $x=0=$equilibrium to $x=A=$amplitude on a vertical spring, gravity does $mgA$ of work no? | |
| Apr 12 at 3:49 | comment | added | naturallyInconsistent | It is very annoying, but there is a theorem that you are expected to prove to yourself. That if you choose to measure "KE + deviations from equilibrium position", the energy expression will only be a constant away from "KE + deviation from unstretched position + gravitational potential energy" and so the physics will be captured correctly conveniently without having to deal with extra terms due to gravity. (And I am posting this answer as a comment because this is so often a duplicate that I don't want to clog up the system by posting an answer.) | |
| Apr 12 at 3:42 | history | edited | Chris Christopherson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Apr 12 at 3:25 | history | asked | Chris Christopherson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |