Re: heat is a form of energy

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>]

At 10:49 AM -0700 9/9/99, David Bowman wrote what I regard as
being fallacious arguments against my claims, but I stand by
those claims knowing that I can't convince him of his errors.

> > Treating the energy as being substantial is the great cognitive
> > block to the student's later understanding of the entropy.
>
> I think *any* concept of energy--substantial or not, ought not influence
> one's concept of entropy, which, at base, has *nothing* to do with energy
> per se.

Rudolph Clausius saw the two concepts as so nearly similar that
he coined the term "entropy" to emphasize that similarity. Once
one abandons misconceptions the similarity becomes dramatic.

> > Some
> > teachers even try to smooth this over by introducing the "flow
> > of entropy" as a helpful concept!
>
> This would not help any understanding of entropy.  Fortunately, I have
> not encountered this teaching technique.

Really? It occurs in Zemansky and Dittman and in Carrington. I
haven't surveyed the texts widely, but the former is probably
the most commonly prescribed textbook on thermodynamics in the
English speaking world. Which textbook have you been using?

> > I apologize for my lack of ability in articulating what is to
> > me a simple conceptual framework. I do recognize that "reality"
> > is a property which is properly discussed by metaphysicists
> > rather than physicists, but I have never been a terribly proper
> > fellow.
>
> No need to apologize here.  If we didn't have different metaphysical
> perspectives, we would have a lot less to discuss on this list--even if
> is supposed to be for 'just' physics.

I'm not quite so liberal in my metaphysics. I retain such
judgmental ideas as "incorrectness" and "nonsense" in my bag
of attitudes. Comes with hardening of the cerebral arteries,
I guess.

Leigh