[geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:45:11 +1000
Paul said. HIS QUESTION CONCERNED . ' that energy which exists in a body
rotating -- note, NOT revolving or otherwise translating. The energy which
would be present if it were the only body in the universe. The energy which
would be demonstrable without reference to any other body. "
good question to think about. I said before as a quick answer, that the energy
was kinetic in the flywheel... means the energy due to momentum or motion, and
I would assume it is also with respect to angular momentum of the flywheel.
However your last phrase, "The energy which would be demonstrable without
reference to any other body." gives me pause. No kinetic energy is self
existent.. Relativity or the relative motions between one body and another are
necessary for a measurement.
We could say that even kinetic energy is potential energy. We even have the
problem of absolute space..A moving body has kinetic energy.. a bullet.. but
if a bullet is fired in the opposite direction of the earths motion, then is
the kinetic energy in the bullet, or do I fly into the bullet.. Its our old
problem of what is absolutely non moving... an impossible question. been here
before..
But your flywheel rotating body has energy relative to the space it occupies..
but if it is all alone if it cannot be referenced to another object, even air
or space itself, to slow it down.. Is it then nonexistent ... no.. i think
not. The body will experience the centrifugal stress within its own substance
as it spins.. this is the flywheel force I keep mentioning, which proves to
itself that it is rotating, (spinning for Allen) Parts can fatigue, and react
against gravity to do work within itself as atoms move around. even fly off
into space, if the speed of rotation was fast enough ..
Lets keep in mind all energy is only energy if it has the potential to do
work.. REAMS OF PHILOSOPHY HAVE BEN WRITTEN ABOUT THAT ONE WORD ENERGY...Is
heat energy? What is energy.. ? they say a rock on the cliffs edge has
potential energy... So "energy" is not a substance. Its a potential! a state
between two positions, or two conditions. I have an old steam book pre 20th or
early 1900's that puts the truth of energy in perspective..
Philip..
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 4:50 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
Philip M
Thank you for your response. It indicates among other things that I have
something (many things?) to learn about terminology. I've found a new and
interesting site which I think might help me -- assuming I can get my rapidly
'addling' (present tense of addled) brain to cooperate. It is
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html.
The angular momentum -- I think I may have the wrong term -- which I am
referring to is that energy which exists in a body rotating -- note, NOT
revolving or otherwise translating. The energy which would be present if it
were the only body in the universe. The energy which would be demonstrable
without reference to any other body.
If you re-examine my illustration in that light, you may wish to modify your
response.
Regarding the poles as depicted in that part of my illustration which you
have included here. I know it's a stretch but I meant literally what I
depicted. The poles are indeed the 'ends' of the axis of rotation and the axis
of rotation is indeed in the plane of the orbit. It closely resembles the
orientation of Uranus in its orbit. This puts the equatorial plane orthogonal
to its ecliptic ie the plane of its orbit.
Please do re-evaluate -- I need your understanding.
Paul D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 1 December, 2008 9:41:54 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
well yes it has two elements of angular momentum.. One due to the orbital
motion, and one due to its angular rotation around its own axial centre.. As
my first answer was..
the answer is the same for diagram B.. The angular momentum of an object
still has two elements... one with respect to its own centre axis, and one
with respect to the primary centre.
However I have difficulty still with your terminology.. Poles generally
refers to the opposite ends of the axis of rotation. In B you seem to have the
poles shifted to the plane of the orbit, which now makes these the equator. and
the rotation is still vertical to plane of the orbit, which make for new poles,
to and bottom. and a new equator..
I did tell you I have difficulty reading static diagrams of a dynamic system.
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 6:44 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon Rotation
Philip M
re Moon Rotation -- From Paul Deema Thu Nov 27 01:37:59 2008 (Attachment
ThreeObjects.png) addressed to Allen D.
I recall your oft stated difficulty visualising physical motions, moving
mechanisms et al, but regardless, I am interested in your take on the questions
included in the illustration. Allen of course has a vested interest in simply
pronouncing my offerings as "Your post is nonsense!" but I believe that you may
well be able to see what I am getting at.
Would you comment please?
Paul D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter Now
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo!7 and win a Sony Bravia TV. Enter Now
Other related posts:
