[geocentrism] Re: Angular momentum
- From: Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:01:12 +0100
Sorry to bug you Neville, but could you just answer one last question on
this.
> Furthermore, the physics argument is perfectly straightforward. If
> some kinetic energy is lost in an inelastic collision, then either
> some mass or some velocity, or both, has been lost. But if it's been
> lost, then some linear momentum (which is itself a product of nothing
> more than mass and velocity) has also been lost. It doesn't just pop
> back in again, so as to save a so-called "law."
Are you actually saying here that both
(u1 + v1) < (u2 + v2)
and
(u1 + v1) > (u2 + v2)
are equally preposterous? i.e. (u1+v1) <> (u2+v2). It sounds like you
think that this in itself demonstrates that momentem can't be conserved.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
