--- Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hence, > > the interaction of a rotating World with an > atmosphere is always > > going to be a case of losing angular momentum > (i.e., angular > > velocity, since the mass of the World does not > change) to the > > atmosphere, because of friction. > > Nope. You're equating angular momentum with energy > again. What I was actually saying, though, was that the angular velocity of the World will be reduced by friction, and that the heat generated by that friction will be dissipated. The disagreement between us goes back to my very first post on this, when I stated that the "law of the conservation of angular momentum" was a grand-sounding name that did not really relate to anything in the real universe. I notice that the logical conclusion that the initial singularity before the "Big Bang" must have been rotating is dismissed. Also, the swirling dust cloud of Swedenborg and Laplace that "gave birth to the solar system" could not have prduced the solar system, simply because different things rotate in totally different directions. Yet this mystical "law" somehow saves the day for acentrists regarding the World/atmosphere. This is fundamentally a conservation of energy argument. > > Do you agree that a completely rigid body rotating > in a vacuum will > continue to spin forever? This is just a hypothetical question, which I would have to say 'no' to, because there is no such thing as a vacuum in the way you infer. > > If so, do you agree that two rigid bodies spinning > relative to each > other in friction will both gradually change their > relative angular > velocity until they are equal while disapating the > energy of the > difference in their kinetic energy as heat while > preserving their > angular momentum? Again, no. Neville. ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com