Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: "non-transfer" of energy



I finally (think I) realize the essential difference between the Greens and the
Denkers, et al.

The Greens define flow as the movement of substance while the others define flow as
the movement of anything that appears to move obeying certain conservation laws, et
cet. whether it's the same thing before and after the movement or not.

"The essential property of "flow" is that a
decrease of something in one region is accompanied
by a simultaneous increase of that thing in a
neighboring region."

I don't call PE and KE, for example, the same thing.

bc

p.s. Curiously, Webster, in 1977, thought flow included energy, "a continuous
transfer of energy" and then in '91 thought better of it (Mr. Green intervened?) and
dropped that definition. The Oxford Encyclopedic (1991) also does not mention
energy. Evidently if we are to PbtD, energy doesn't flow.

p.p.s. the dictionary isn't much help with the word substance -- they use the
Aristotelian definition.

"John S. Denker" wrote:

Bernard Cleyet wrote:

... I don't consider heat as a substance,

Agreed.

and therefor, can not flow.

Huh? That doesn't follow. Not at all.

The essential property of "flow" is that a
decrease of something in one region is accompanied
by a simultaneous increase of that thing in a
neighboring region. There is no requirement that
the flowing thing be a substance. There are lots
of perfectly good things that are not substances.

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of Charlotte,
Wilbur, or Templeton.

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.