Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
Missed your reply... Because you can't not see or touch something does not really make it less real. Perhaps less tactile but not less real. Calling things like energy or power "mathematical" it a bit belittling to the entire field of physics. I buy "indirectly observable" though.
I do appreciate your point about that "clever man" and yes we are headed there...
You need to replace "component" above with "analogue"! Otherwise that is not correct.
Lastly, I will also staunchly defend my prior definition of torque. It most basic definition is T = r x F, where the letters are vectors and x is the vector cross product. Two forces are very common but are absolutely not required. Even in the cases of rotating machinery such as ICEs, electric motors, turbines, etc. There are always actual linear forces involved which act at a distance to yield a torque. Sometimes there are a few linear forces, sometimes they have couples, sometimes not.
Cheers.
|
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the concept of energy. It is only a question of point of view I suppose
.
While I agree that a single force acting at distance will generate a torque, it is not a "pure" torque per se. A force acting at a distancecwill also generate a translation force, so you will need more than one reaction force to keep that system in balance. For example, if you apply a force at the free end of an embedded cantilevered beam, two reaction forces are required at the embedded end to keep the system in balance, a torque and a linear force. However, if you apply a torque at one end of a shaft, all you need is an opposing torque applied at the other end to keep the system in balance.
I do see your point of view though, as the foundation of Newtonian physics is based on only three basic "units" (mass, length and time). In the end, everything else could be considered "derived" in some sort of way from these basic units.
Cheers to you too
.