--- Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I may have made a mistake, I am only human. But you > have not > demonstrated that I have. I made very specific > points about your two > equations that your result relies on. You need to > show exactly where I > am wrong rather than just make some wishy washy > statement about > direction and tell me to work it out. > So in other words you can just claim that the maths on the webpage is wrong and I have to go to the trouble of going through your non-supplied mathematics to prove to you (and to your satisfaction) that you were wrong? I thought you asked me to detail my statement about the inapplicability of the "law" of the conservation of linear momentum in inelastic collisions? I thought I did EXACTLY that? You then state, without any justification, that I have ignored the fact that velocity is a vector quantity. Get off your bookshelf any of the elementary physics textbooks that you appear to place so much store by and many times you will observe that velocity (and hence linear momentum) is treated as a scalar. That's because it doesn't matter. I have told you how to see for yourself that it doesn't matter, and you now accuse me of failing to answer your contention!! You are simply wrong. Hopefully you will acknowledge this fact. As for your > > You STILL haven't responded to my last post > regarding your "proof" of > the incorrectness of heliocentrism regarding the > celestial poles. > note that this is because I have no intention of responding to someone who is simultaneously posting ridicule on BadAstronomy about this, or any related, subject. I have not seen that you have acted in this way regarding angular or linear momentum, so I will continue this thread, but I have witnessed your comments on the celestial poles, so I will not detain you from discussing it there. Best wishes, Neville. ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com