Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Yeah. It _is_ kind of conspicuous that all the examples talk about 
> *lifting* an object. As if moving an object horizontally wouldn't 
> require any energy or something...

It doesn't, in the physics definition of "energy".  Other than the fact that 
you expend energy to accelerate the object and more energy to decelerate it, 
and to overcome friction and such. But if it's (say) sitting on a 
frictionless surface, you can move it as far as you want with as little 
energy as you want.

You're thinking the physics definition of "energy" has something to do with 
"effort".  The physics definition of "energy" has to do with how much work 
you can make the mass under consideration perform. I.e., if it's the weight 
on a pendulum clock, and the clock is stopped because you're holding it up, 
you're neither making the clock capable of running longer nor shorter 
because you're holding it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message