Entering into the tepid waters of the energy flow discussion.
Currently I'm in the (yes to HEAT as verb, no to HEAT as noun camp);
After observing for this discussion for a few days, and missing a lot of it
over the summer, a few comments and questions for Leigh to respond to.
(and/or maybe Jim).
a) Its not clear to me if Leigh objects to the use of energy flow or heat
flow terminology or both. As a heat as verb person, I presume that I must
object to heat flow terminology, but it doesn't follow that I must object to
energy flow terminology.
b) There is no such thing as "pure energy", so it is not a corporeal thing.
But why must something be corporeal in order to use flow terminology?
c) It strikes me that I can legitimately refer to energy flow as long as it
is well defined (in context) and is quantifiable. I don't even think that
we need require that the flowing stuff be a conserved quantity. ( I admit
that if not conserved, the flow concept becomes more difficult to deal with,
as one now one must take into account sources and sinks). I like the
analogy someone made a while ago to the flow of money.
d) Leigh, when you said that energy is not locally conserved, were you
refering to different frames of reference or were you referring to the
non-localizability of energy? And how about global conservation?
This is all meant to be food for thought and topics for conversation.
(Hopefully, its not waving the red cape).