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



At 10:58 20 04 2002 , you wrote:
Correct; it is a property, but reifiable.

Charge flows; i.e. we are interested in the charge not the mass.

P.s. What is substance? Is everything property?

Brian McInnes wrote:

Brian and Bill are quite right to complain at the distortion of a
reasonably good language -- well only reasonably good - how ever it is
already bent out of shape in many conversations.

The language of physics should be that of precision. Medicine makes a good
attempt at precise language -- because if a mistake is made there, someone
may die!

If we tolerate this in physics, all we do is end up with threads like the
beginning of this one -- and we loose much of the power of communication.

If we keep at it we will have all attributes spoken of a substance: If one
doesn't speak a lie, one has truth flowing from his mouth. If a
transvestite has a sex change, he has an infusion of feminity. If we paint
the house, blue has flowed onto the wall.

Our students have a difficult time as it is. Why make it more
daunting? We can use familiar inexact language, but then they will have to
overcome this weakness later.

Electrons flow from - to + and have the property of charge -- This process
can be described as an electrical current, an invented concept, which flows
from + to -.

What is so hard about saying it correctly?

But more importantly

What is gained by garbaging it up?

Jim Green
mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen