[geocentrism] Re: Angular momentum
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:13:01 +0100 (BST)
Mike,
Rather than my arguments being circular, it is you who
are continually switching between linear and angular
momentum. Using linear when it suits you, to try and
justify your contention that angular is relevant to a
gaseous "body."
I was pleased to see that you said, "Maybe [your] use
of the word "any" in [your] previous post was a little
strong."
Whilst I appreciate the time and trouble you went to
to give the group the online encyclopedia reference, I
must point out that such sources of information have
to be appreciated as to the scope of audience they are
geared for.
> >
> > It is not conserved in an inelastic collision,
> no.
>
> Are you saying that according to convetional physics
> it is not conserved
> or just according to you?
According to me, definitely, but also according to
anyone who delves deeply enough into this.
> I think your contention
> that a rotating earth
> would necessarily slow to halt due to atmospheric
> friction boils down to
> this above statememt.
Yes, I agree, it does boil down to this.
>
> You are still confusing kinetic energy with angular
> momentum. Inelastic
> collisions result in a decrease in *kinetic energy*.
>
> I think it would be helpful here if you clarify
> which bit of
> conventional physics you disagree with.
>
I thank you for stimulating my thoughts on this,
because I have today been drafting another page for
the website. This is turning (pardon the pun) into a
VERY important point.
To be continued ...
Neville.
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo!
Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
