[geocentrism] Re: Thanks for reading
- From: "Gary L. Shelton" <GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:45:09 -0500
Mike, here's a brief question. Is it still a problem for an acentric
universe that we have apparent non-CAM in the retrograde and sideways
rotations of the planets, or has this problem been resolved for the Big
Bang? If it is still a problem, does this mean that the acentrists and
geocentrists are yet on equal ground as far as the origins of the universe?
Thank you,
Gary Shelton
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 3:02 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Thanks for reading
> Philip wrote:
> > Gary, not to worry. I had to think real hard myself, and I still do not
> > understand the conservation of energy in angular velocity.
>
> It's important not to confuse the conservation of energy (CoE) with the
> conservation of angular momentum (CAM). With two objects rotating
> relative to each other in contact with friction will slow down until
> they both have the same angular velocity all the while preserving their
> angular momentum. But in doing so their kinetic energy will disapate as
> heat. To consider the CoE you must include this disapation. But if the
> heat is radiated uniformly it will not affect the angular momentum.
>
> > Not many even know what is involved in the precession of a spinning top.
Do
> > a google and you will find pages of math. When they have to do that, I
just
> > instinctfully say, "they don't know. "
>
> I would instinctively say "I don't know" until I understand the maths
> they present. Once I do then I am in a position to agree or disagree
> with them.
>
> > We have an old saying here in Australia. "Bullshit baffles brains."
Politics
> > or science, its all the same.
>
> Very true, which is why when making arguments about physics it is best
> to start with an idealized situation and only consider the complications
> to it once we can agree on the idealized situation.
>
> Regards,
> Mike.
>
>
>
Other related posts:
