Re: Current Flow (shouldn't it be "charge flow?")

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

A true Berkeleyan has "spoken."  (Bishop of Cloyne, not UCB)

bc


William Beaty wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Jim Green wrote:
>
> > Right you are, Brian, and praise to you for pointing this out -- but we
> > physicists -- well, some of us -- insist on reifying properties.
>
> And some of us think that properties are actually real (and are the only
> things that ARE real.)  An atom or a person or a gallon of water is just a
> collection of persistant localized properties, sort of like a bunch of
> numbers floating in space.  Remove the properties and nothing is left.
>
> But rather than arguing philosophy re. "charge," it might be better to
> agree on a definition of the word "substance."  With a clear definition,
> we then might easily agree on whether charge, energy, etc., is a
> substance or not.
>
> (((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
> William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
> billb@eskimo.com                            http://amasci.com
> EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   science projects, tesla, weird science
> Seattle, WA  206-789-0775    sciclub-list freenrg-L vortex-L webhead-L