[geocentrism] Re: Several posts

  • From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 02:16:26 +0100 (BST)

Here's an interesting little article:
You said, "We achieve nothing in conversation if we allow ourselves to descend 
into insult."

******** I agree. I agree entirely. ********

" I'll ... try to confine myself to talking about your ideas which is why I'm 
here afterall."

******** I'm flattered that you should be interested in talking about them at 
all, and I'm also encouraged by it. ********

> The effect of the atmosphere en mass is to act as a > couple. The law of the 
> conservation of angular momentum, that the > total angular momentum of a 
> rotating system remains constant in the > absence of any external torque, is 
> not relevant to the interaction > between the solid and liquid World and its 
> gaseous atmosphere.

"If you claim this is standard physics then you are mistaken."

******** I would like to replace your "standard" with "conventional," but the 
reply to your point is that no, I do not make such a claim. You are perfectly 
entitled to argue that the World and its atmosphere is a rotating system within 
a vacuum. And the logical continuation of this is when later on you say that 
the ice skater will "slow down and impart her angular momentum on the air in 
the process." Yes, I follow what you say and, yes, this is a conventional 
explanation. ********

"I would challenge you to supply links or references to support this claim. As 
far as I understand conservation of angular momentum (CAM) applies to any 
closed system. For the sake of the argument over whether or not the earth and 
atmosphere can be rotating together you can consider them as a closed system. 
... If you accept that what you said is contrary to conventional physics then I 
would be interested in reading your elaboration of the point." 

******** Whoops, I missed the fact that you used "conventional." Anyway, 
perhaps a good way of elaborating upon this difference between us is to stick 
with the ice skater. The ice skater is to all intents and purposes a rigid 
body. She moves en mass. Ignoring the friction between her boots and the ice 
again, you accept that she slows down because she has imparted some of her 
angular momentum to the air around her. My question to you is simply this: how 
does the air around her, which is not rigid, but gaseous, then impart its 
angular momentum back to her? I know that you have indicated the need for a 
statistical, Brownian motion-type analysis, but surely there must be an overall 
transference of angular momentum in this system from the skater to the air and, 
since the air is not in a "closed system" even with the World and its 
atmosphere (because of thermal radiation, meteorites, gravitational effects, 
for example), over time the skater (or World), loses more than she retreives
 slows down to a stop.

Best wishes,


 ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  

Other related posts: