Re: Dissipation

[Jim Green <JMGreen@SISNA.COM>]

Oh, John, do you really want to pursue this -- if the past is future,
nothing I say is going to change your views,

It ought to be clear to all that, if the theory is convoluted with
inappropriate language, it is usually easy to convolute the solution as
well,  Thus the solution becomes a formality without a good understanding
of the theory.  (Just like QM for most of us. <g>)

Sometimes, however, as in the case of the original question which began
this thread, the language is so convoluted with inaccurate usage that a
response is beyond the likes of at least me.  The thread was stumbling over
its own words.  If the question were cleaned up, the answer would be nearly
obvious.

I repeat a message I have offered to you before:  There is absolutely no
requirement on this list that anyone listen to what I say -- or even read
my messages for that matter -- but as long as there are foggy posts I may
well have something to say over here in my little corner.

Jim Green


====================================================

John insists as follows:

Perhaps some day he will respond to the second half
> of my message, wherein I wrote:
>
> >>Despite repeated requests, you have not yet offered any specific examples
> >>of where the usual concepts of energy and energy-flow lead to either
> >>   a) an internal inconsistency in the theory, or
> >>   b) a false prediction about the outcome of an experiment.
> >>
> >>If you choose not to use the concepts, that's your business.  But please
> >>don't hassle those who can (and do) use the concepts in correct
> >>calculations and clear communications.

Jim Green
mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen