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: CONSERVATION OF ENERGY



Leigh will not be satisfied it seems by anything less than this:
"Energy: the property of a system that is a measure of its capacity for
doing work"

In physics our definitions can be used to make calculations. This one
can't be; it is not a physical definition, and in this case it is
incorrect. This definition will suffice narrowly for watchsprings and
reservoirs. It fails utterly for blocks of warm iron. It is neither a
physical nor a complete lexical definition of energy. Among the many
exceptions might I modestly suggest E=mc^2?

You might be excused for mistaking Ludwik's construction for the dictionary
definition that I take to be Leigh's view.

It seems I'm alone in left field. I'd really like to hear from David
Bowman and Donald Simanek on this topic. It has become so muddled
that their help is needed. Lacking that I retreat again to Feynman's
parable of the blocks. It explains energy with such blinding clarity
that I can't imagine anyone being exposed to it and failing to
understand.

I'm sorry that, after entering this discussion late, I have to be so
impolite, but the errors here are quite serious. I am only trying to
be helpful, but I realize that I have not been. I've tried to teach,
and I have failed. There has even been talk of reaching consensus on
the matter, as though it might be desirable to rethink what was
already fairly well understood in the nineteenth century. That is not
the way science is done. Science is not democratic.

Leigh