Re: Energy as ability to do work

[John Denker <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

At 11:12 AM 10/26/99 -0500, Lemmerhirt, Fred wrote:
> >       I vote for "just plain wrong".
>
> Now to me this sounds more like "lacks generality", since it's just an
> example of a case where the "ability to do work" point of view does not
> apply (and is not usually even attempted).

Now we really do have a divergence on what the meaing of "is" is.

When I see something that is meant to be an analogy or an example that
lacks generality, then I say that it lacks generality and that's the end of it.

OTOH when I see something that purports to be a definition and purports to
have vastly more generality that it really does, I say it's just plain wrong.

If you want to "define" a sub-type of energy that isn't general enough to
include thermodynamics, then it would be a big help to warn people of the
limitations.

______________________________________________________________
copyright (C) 1999 John S. Denker             jsd@monmouth.com