Re: pressure at an intangible boundary

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

Just testing.  (did you note the intended pun?)

I mistakenly sent my previous msg., on this topic to only Mr. Green.

Here it is:


"You joke, I presume.

bc   who thinks only conversation, garments, traffic, tides, solids when the
stress
exceeds their elastic limit, results, land (milk and honey), boxes (chart), and
fluids -- not energy, flow.


Jim Green wrote:

> > 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 ..."

bc  who thinks only objects move

p.s. I forgot to limit the solids to plastic ones.


brian mcinnes wrote:

> on 3/12/02 11:13 AM, Bernard Cleyet at anngeorg@PACBELL.NET wrote:
>
> > Seems to me that if one has dyed water green, then in pouring the green water
> > out of a pitcher, one has flowing green.
> I would say we had flowing green water
>
> > Momentum is moving mass (forget about E-M  momentum for
> > now); no problem; momentum flows.
> Moving mass?
> Surely it's more properly a moving object that has p[roperties of mass and
> of velocity, among other properties.
> So, I would say the object moves, nothing flows.
>
> This is an old and rather intractable topic on this list, but let me make
> the case for anti-reification once again.
>
> Flow surely means moving along in a stream, as a liquid.
> This meaning could be, and is, extended the idea of proceeding  continuously
> and smoothly, like a stream, as "flow of thought" or "flow of speech".
> To jump from here to "flow of a particular property of a substance" is quite
> a leap.  When this leap is made in teaching at introductory levels from
> primary school through secondary school to freshman classes it will almost
> certainly carrying with it the conception of energy as a substance, as a
> kind of liquid.
>
> Brian McInnes