XPost: sci.physics, sci.astro
In article <3feadb97$0$4746$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>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.
>
Why? It was funny.
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)
|
