XPost: sci.physics, sci.astro   
      
   In article ,   
      mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:   
   >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]   
   >>   
   >:-)))   
      
   Whew!!  [emoticon wipes anticipation sweat from brow]  I was   
   expecting a boot.   
      
   /BAH   
      
   Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)