[geocentrism] Re: More combined post responses
- From: Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:39:25 +0100
>>> 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.
No you weren't. You were saying that the world *and* atmosphere
together must necessarily lose angular momentum due to friction until
both are stationary. Otherwise you would agree that they could continue
to spin forever despite friction.
> 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.
And incorrectly tried to claim that it only applies to rigid bodies.
When I point out that a fluid is just a huge *collection* of rigid
bodies you the claim that I am saying that a fluid is *one* rigid body.
> I notice that the logical conclusion that the initial
> singularity before the "Big Bang" must have been
> rotating is dismissed.
Well I never made any claims about the big bang. All I did was point
out the big bang theory does not *necessitate* a swirling beginning to
account for the rotating planets, star systems and galaxies no matter
how often creationists put up this straw man (astonishly to then shoot
it down with a completely false interpretation of the conservation of
angular momentum anyway).
> 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.
So you still cling to this creationists myth about CoA meaning everyting
must spin the same way? If you're going to disagree with convential
physics at least be honest about what conventional physics is.
> This is fundamentally a conservation of energy
> argument.
You are simply confused in thinking that because there is a law of
conservation of energy and a law of conservation of angular momentum
that somehow there is an implied law of energy momenutm equivalence.
Can you *really* not see that two objects spinning in opposite
directions in friction will disapate their respective kinetic energy as
heat without altering their total angular momentum?
>>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.
That's a either a complete cop-out, or you disagree with Newton's first
law of motion! Despite the fact that you said it was obvious only six
days ago:
//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/10-2004/msg00060.html
"...but doesn't actually state anything *other than the obvious* [
emphasis mine ]. It is basically just the rotational equivalent of
Newton's first law of motion (that a body does not undergo a change in
direction without a force acting upon it). It applies to rigid bodies
and, if the World were a sphere, spinning in a vacuum, then there would
be some justification to what you say."
>>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.
How so???
Ok, lets take two objects spinning in opposite directions at the same
speed. Lets assume for the sake of argument that "stationary" means
with respect to us observing them both spinning with equal and opposite
angular speeds and that we do not accelerate ourselves throughout.
Is their total angular momentum zero from our point of view?
- If not then which do you think has the greater angular momentum?
- If so then bring them together so that they are in friction. Will
they both decelerate at the same rate?
- If not then which one slows down the fastest?
- If so then when they finally come to rest relative to each other
will they both now be stationary?
- If not then which way will they be spinning?
- If so then you agree that we have disapated their kinetic
energy without changing the angular momentum.
I can anticipate you saying this is not fair because the angular
momentum is already zero but bear with me, if you agree with all the "if
so"s above then I will modify it for you so that it has a non-zero
momentum and see where we disagree.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
