[geocentrism] Re: Angular momentum
- From: Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:10:03 +0100
> Far from saying that "conventional" (in the sense that
> I must by now have made clear, surely?) physics says
> that "momentum is not conserved in inelastic
> collisions," I have actually put forward the complete
> opposite position. I.e., and I had better spell this
> out, too, "conventional," (commonly taught at a low
> level), physics states that linear momentum IS IS IS
> IS IS conserved in inelastic collisions.
Well when you said "conventional" I thought you meant "what most
physicists thought", not what they didn't think but taught in the
classrooms anyway. What you actually said is here for everyone to read
so I won't bother persuing this further.
> I hope that I have now sorted out your confusion.
What you actually said is here for everyone to read.
> As regards your claims of the vectoral nature of
> velocity, it is you who have made the mistake. The
> only difference between a scalar quantity and a vector
> quantity is direction. Work it all out, starting with
> both particles only moving along the x-axis, for
> example.
I may have made a mistake, I am only human. But you have not
demonstrated that I have. I made very specific points about your two
equations that your result relies on. You need to show exactly where I
am wrong rather than just make some wishy washy statement about
direction and tell me to work it out.
> You are basically saying that the particles have lost
> direction, but I would contend that it is you who have
> lost your direction.
I said that in equation (1) *you* lost the directional nature of the
particles' velocities and so derived an inequality for *speeds* and then
equated those quantities with an equality regarding *velocities*. You
have not refuted this.
You STILL haven't responded to my last post regarding your "proof" of
the incorrectness of heliocentrism regarding the celestial poles.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
