Re: [Phys-l] workable versus unworkable energy

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

I hardly think that providing a common example of usage of the word transfer
is going off in all directions.  When particles interact are properties such
as charge transferred, or is it destroyed and recreated somewhere else?
Either interpretation can be used.

But notice that my point is still firmly that the idea of transference of
energy needs to be used with students initially so that they can gain a firm
grasp on conservation ideas.  I really do not care what others believe is
the correct interpretation.  After all physics is just a set of models which
can be changed when needed and looked at in different ways.  The math makes
no distinction between many of these different ways of looking at it.  These
different ways are there because we project our ideas and experiences onto
nature, and our natural language is not really consistent.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> [Brian]
> > you apparently don't totally agree that the property of energy
> > >   is not transferable.
> > > Apparently it has to disappear here and appear there, not transfer....
>
> > But that is transference.  The word transfer implies that something
> > disappears one place and appears in another.  For example you can
> transfer
> > money by wire, or essentially teleport it.
> ///
> > John M. Clement
> > Houston, TX
>
> Just as the fundamentalists are wont to recall that the Devil can quote
> scripture, I am apt to swing onto a hobby horse and gallop off in
> all directions too.
>
>
>
> Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!