Re: Nomenclature

[Jim Green <JMGreen@sisna.com>]

At 02:20 PM 8/28/97 -0500, Van wrote:
> This discussion regarding the use of the term "heat" has become "heated,"
> to say the least!  It really is amazing how such a vast number of
> supposedly well-educated physicists, including people like Zemansky, just
> can't seem to get it right!  And since it has been stated earler in this
> discussion that NO textbook authors ever (rarely?) get it right, we can
> only conclude that textbooks are written (and proofread) by the less
> knowledgable of the lot of physicists.  I'd say this is serious!

Van, I am a bit unsure that there isn't some jest here, but your conclusion
is quite valid; this *is* a serious matter -- I just looked again at Serway
and at H&R and cringe at what I see.  The problem of course is that many on
this list say "Hey, it's what Serway says and it is the same thing I heard
in college, so why should I concern myself with this issue. What is good
enough for them is good enough for me."  BUT this is what those writers and
teachers heard in class -- it is what their texts and teachers said.  AND it
is what those writers and teachers heard and read.  AND it is ......

It is not ALL texts -- Feynman(sp?) gets it right (despite the Parable of
the Blocks that Leigh is so fond of (:-)), but who reads Feynman.

Until teachers on this list wake up and see the importance of getting it
right and vow to teach it correctly, this issue will persist into the
foreseeable future ad infinitum (et ad nauseum).  

This is the tragedy!

 

Jim Green
JMGreen@sisna.com