Paul Fuller <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >>   Besides, we can just forget the cable: Simply shoot the projectile and
> >> that's it. With the correct amount of speed it will stop the object from
> >> rotating. Where did the angular momentum go?
> > 
> >   I thought about this and became to a conclusion. You could have explained
> > it if you knew it instead of just saying "you are wrong" without any
> > explanation.

> Several times, as carefully as I could I explained that angular momentum 
> is conserved in a closed system.

  No, you didn't explain anything. You just stated something. More
specifically, I don't remember you explaining precisely how angular
momentum is preserved in the specific case I quoted above (which is
what I asked about).

  Basically your "explanation" was "the angular momentum is conserved
because angular momentum is always conserved". That's not an explanation
of how angular momentum is conserved in the example above.

> Sorry but you continued to assert that friction could cancel out angular 
> momentum and that a spinning closed system could be brought to rest 
> without any external force.

  You have still failed to explain why friction does not reduce angular
momentum. You have simply stated that it doesn't.

  What I don't understand is how a rotating object can produce heat but
still maintain its full angular momentum. You have not explained this
at all.

> I'll admit to being a poor instructor.  I think you have to admit to 
> being a) wrong and b) pig-headed about it.

  That kind of language is indeed not going to receive too much
approval from me.

  Basically what you have stated is "angular momentum is always preserved
because that's how it works, you are wrong, you are stubborn, you are
silly". That is supposed to convince me about anything?

> I will reply to your other posts to try to clear up some of the wrong 
> assertions that you continue to make in them.  It would be nice if you 
> could reply in one coherent go though rather than in dribs and drabs of 
> silliness.

  That kind of attitude and language is not the best possible to get a
positive attitude from my part.

  I want rational explanations, not "you are wrong because you are wrong"
type of null statements.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message