XPost: sci.physics, sci.astro   
      
   In article <3fe87200$0$4739$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:   
   >In article ,   
   >   mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:   
   >>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:-)   
   >   
   >1)...one...four....ten...two.   
   >2)...one..eight...twenty-three...forty-seven.   
   >Original...five...twelve...sixty-nine...a hundred.   
   >   
   >IF TWO=FORTY-SEVEN, CALL EXIT.   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >   
   >[emoticon stuffs more straw padding in its overalls]   
   >   
   :-)))   
      
   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)