XPost: sci.physics, sci.astro   
      
   In article , bjacoby@iwaynet.net writes:   
   >In sci.astro mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:   
   >   
   >> This is not philosp[hy but physics, so what it "seems" to you is   
   >> irrelevant.  Temperature has a physical definition and it is *not*   
   >> energy.   
   >   
   >So let's do some physics!  Are you saying that Temperature has NO   
   >relation to energy of a system?   
      
   It appears that reading comprehension is a dying art:-(   
      
   Compare the two statements:   
      
   1)  Temperature is not energy.   
   2)  Temperature is not related to energy.   
      
   Now, which of the two statements I used, in the text above?  Take your   
   time, if you run into difficulties comparing, try to count words:-)   
   When you'll recognize the difference, you're welcome to ask further   
   questions.  Till then, don't bother, I'm not responding to strawmen,   
   as a rule.   
      
   Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,   
   meron@cars.uchicago.edu         |  chances are he is doing just the same"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)