Mike, Rather than my arguments being circular, it is you who are continually switching between linear and angular momentum. Using linear when it suits you, to try and justify your contention that angular is relevant to a gaseous "body." I was pleased to see that you said, "Maybe [your] use of the word "any" in [your] previous post was a little strong." Whilst I appreciate the time and trouble you went to to give the group the online encyclopedia reference, I must point out that such sources of information have to be appreciated as to the scope of audience they are geared for. > > > > It is not conserved in an inelastic collision, > no. > > Are you saying that according to convetional physics > it is not conserved > or just according to you? According to me, definitely, but also according to anyone who delves deeply enough into this. > I think your contention > that a rotating earth > would necessarily slow to halt due to atmospheric > friction boils down to > this above statememt. Yes, I agree, it does boil down to this. > > You are still confusing kinetic energy with angular > momentum. Inelastic > collisions result in a decrease in *kinetic energy*. > > I think it would be helpful here if you clarify > which bit of > conventional physics you disagree with. > I thank you for stimulating my thoughts on this, because I have today been drafting another page for the website. This is turning (pardon the pun) into a VERY important point. To be continued ... Neville. ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com