J>"The internal energy of cube A increases by 500 J and that of cube B
J>decreases by 500 J". There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, Jim.
L>But my question was not answered. I wanted to know:
L>
L> Why is it bad physics to say that there is a flow of 500 J of energy,
L> from cube A to cube B, during the equilibrating process?
Ludwik, et al., I think I need a break -- someone else should step in here.
Folks, if you want to say "energy flows" or "heat flows" go ahead and say
it. You can also say that "matter is converted to energy" and "tidal
bulges" if you like and can actually communicate in simple terms with some
people.
But remember the problem which initiated this thread (this time) -- the
block sliding on a "big" plate. The tread was reduced to cacophony and as
far as I can see a solution was never agreed to -- mostly I think because
the language used was foggy and had stuff "flowing" -- all sorts of
weirdness was introduced -- including "pseudo-work", etc.
The First Law should be based on the Work/Energy principle, W=dKE. If this
simplicity were kept in mind, there would be a lot less grief in the world.
Wars would cease, famine and disease would be eliminated, this list would be
a lot better place, and students would understand more.
Ludwik doesen't answer *my* question: why is it so hard to say it correctly?