[geocentrism] Re: CAM and CoE
- From: Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:47:57 +0100
> Worzel, huh? That makes for an interesting connection. Thanks for
> identifying yourself. Don't take offense at this but coming over to this
> site has made you seem much more the diplomat than when you were on BA.
You'll find that's true of everyone who goes posting in a forum with
people they don't agree with, including people who venture from here to
BA. It's the only way to have useful discussions.
> (D'ya think it would do the same for even Maksutov? Hmm. That fellow was
> harsh. At any rate, I don't think a guy who tosses hotel bibles in the
> trash for fun would ever darken our door.)
I think he was teasing, but if he came then yes, he would tone have to
tone it down a bit. It is very impolite to go into a forum for
believers in X and just rubbish X - what's the point.
> I should re-read some of your
> posts there now. When I went to BA I wondered if Rob Glover would show up
> and then one day he recognized me from here and identified himself as
> Yorkshireman. It all makes for some interesting connections. (Where does
> "Worzel" come from, BTW?)
Long story.
> Mike wrote:
>
>>But the point is this isn't completley closed. The kinectic engergy is
>>disapted as heat while the angular momentum remains constant. I was
>>showing you that loss of kinetic energy is not necessarily loss of
>>angular momentum. Do you agree with that statement?
>
> Mike, from what I know, I agree with you on the "completely closed" thing.
> I don't understand how anything could really be considered "closed" in this
> universe, except in some very limited "mostly closed" sense. So as far as
> this thought that losing kinetic energy would not affect AM, let me say that
> it seems to me you are postulating that this part of your metaphor IS in a
> closed situation where, yes, the AM would be conserved. But, Mike, if there
> is openness for the kinetic energy to dissipate, isn't it just as true there
> would be openness for the AM to dissipate? Is not friction a valid
> "outside" force for both, Mike?
>
> I mean, a number of times someone or the other on BA would tell me that
> space is not a perfect vacuum. And Dr. Jones just stated that it is full of
> "debris". Well, if that's true (or if aether is considered) then would
> there not be a component of friction in your hypothetical space example that
> would actually reduce, albeit possibly minutely, the AM between the two
> bodies? Now I suppose you could say that the AM of "space", or of the
> particles that caused the friction in space at least, would have changed a
> corresponding amount, but then that does seem mighty open. If we're talking
> about friction on the earth's atmosphere from space, then over billions of
> years what effect would that have had?
Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned closed systems at all.
The argument you and Neville are putting forward is that the energy lost
through friction between the atmosphere and the earth *necessitates* a
loss in angular momentum.
At the moment I'm just trying to demonstrate that loss of energy
(kinetic => friction => heat) does not necessitate loss of angular
momentum and therefore your argument doesn't hold.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
