Re: Energy

[John Denker <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

At 03:43 PM 8/4/99 -0600, Jim Green wrote:
> Well, Jack, it isn't clear where you are lost -- with the previous post or
> with my remarks re someone's complaint that the post wasn't drab.

This is spiralling far off topic.  I think we can all agree that all four
possibilities are possible:

        (A) good physics,               (B) good physics,
            drab language                   flashy language

        (C) mistakes,                   (D) mistakes,
            drab language                   flashy language


It is a matter of opinion, but in my opinion moving from (A) to (B) is
often an improvement, although one must be careful when using nonstandard
terms.   I never intended to criticize anyone for flashy language.

In contrast, moving from (C) to (D) is never an improvement.  Using flashy
and/or nonstandard language to conceal slipshod thinking does nobody any good.

My note which provoked this tangent made several points about the
usefulness of local conservation of energy.  If anyone has questions about
these points, I look forward to discussing them.