Paul Fuller wrote:
> I don't think I implied that it is random.  If so then let me clear that 
> up.

Sorry. Random is a bad word to use.

That things work the same no matter which way you face is the "random" 
part. It's not necessary that things work that way. But it seems they 
do. *Given* that, conservation of angular momentum is a result.

> I don't think you can explain though why those principles are true 
> without essentially coming back to restating them or observing that 
> we've never seen them to be broken.  

Right. What I was trying to express is that "angular momentum is 
conserved" isn't really the "we've never seen it to be broken" part. 
It's the "experiments run the same no matter which way you face" that's 
the "never seen to be broken part".  Conservation of angular momentum is 
an effect, not a cause.

> And it is cool :)

Yup.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message