Re: why pseudowork?

[John Mallinckrodt <ajmallinckro@CSUPOMONA.EDU>]

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Jim Green wrote:

> John, with genuinely great respect for your insight into things physics,
> what you say in the paper is reasonably quite clear,  It is just that I
> don't agree with those views.

That seems at odds with what you wrote and what I was responding to.  Just
to remind you, you wrote:

> > I have carefully studied John's paper and still don't see the point.
> > Either the work/energy theorem is valid or it isn't.

> You seem to be saying above that your paper is _obviusly_ "true"

Not at all.  I was saying that I thought its *point* was quite clear.  I
confess that I don't understand the relevance of your statement, "Either
the work/energy theorem is valid or it isn't."  We certainly weren't
suggesting that it isn't; we simply pointed out that there is more than
one useful way to define work-like quantities and that each is connected
with a different kind of energy change.

> I am not saying that what you write is "wrong" only that it is only one
> way to view things and that I am not totally comfortable in doing so.

Fine.  I hope you'll never catch me saying that my way is the way
"everyone" does or must do it.  Frankly I don't care how many people do it
my way.  I only care whether or not my way is useful.  I get angry when
people try to tell me that a useful method is "wrong" or imply that I
shouldn't do it because few others do.

John Mallinckrodt      mailto:ajm@csupomona.edu
Cal Poly Pomona          http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm