Clarifying The Buzsaw Position

quote:

---

I also wanted to appeal to Admin that restricting science forums to mainline assembly line thought and methodology, layman logic and IDist ideology is going to widen the balance gap in science when ideal dialog is debatable and ideologically diverse.

---

I've got a question for you Buz. Are you claiming that all the work scientists do - all the experimental work, all the observationa work, all the detailed theoretical work - is unnecessary. Or are you claiming that "IDists" - I assume that you mean YECs as usual - are somehow super-geniuses who don't need to do all that work ?To me it looks as if your "IDist" science is often just bullshit. For instance your claim that there was a different atmosphere before the Flood that somehow affected the dating evidence lacks any theoretical basis (you can't offer a reasonable composition for the atmosphere that could have had that result) or evidential support (the evidence is strongly against the Flood and there's no direct evidence that the atmosphere was different in a way that would have the efects you claim). So why should it be taken as valid science ? What makes it any more than some bullshit excuse concocted as an excuse to throw out evidence that disproves your beleifs ?

The "hyperflight" site seems to hae made the mistake of thinking that conservation of momentum - including conservation of angular momentum - are absolutes. This is false. Conservation of momentum is an idealisation which only fully applies in special cases.Looking at their Concept One page it also seems that they think that momentum is energy (it isn't) and that theyreject even Special Relativity. This is wrong. Momentum and kinetic energy are both proportional to the mass of the body, but momentum is proportional to the velocity and kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. Splitting the energy equally will not conserve momentum if the bodies are of unequal mass. The math doesn't work out unless the masses are equal. i.e. Special Relativity contradicts Newton therefore Special Relativity is wrong and anyone who believes it is ignorant. That in itself is enough to indicate that this is a crank site.You really do need to learn how to identify reliable sources.

Hi Buzsaw,I would be glad to try to help you if over the years you hadn't proven so resistant to help. You're a hopeless cause. Just please stay out of the science forums unless you're going to make an effort to make sense. Being wrong is fine, but persisting in posting nonsense is not.I'm stupid enough to take a stab at this anyway. I see PaulK has already informed you that you're looking at a website whose misconstruals seem as great as your own, but here's a simple disproof for you. You're riding a bike and brake to a halt. Where did the angular momentum of the wheels go? According to your website, something must have picked up the angular momentum lost by the wheels, but nothing did, did it. Your brakes absorbed the energy in the wheels and transformed it into heat. They did not start spinning.Buz, you can Google away to your heart's content finding sites that support your views, but they won't be saying anything that corresponds to reality. You seem to have this belief that hiding out there somewhere in cyberspace are websites that actually did scientific research supporting what you feel like believing. There aren't. There cannot be. No scientific research supporting your views could possibly exist because your views do not correspond to reality. The universe did not start with X amount of angular momentum which has been conserved to this day. That's nonsense. Energy is infinitely mutable and can easily change from one form to another. Just mount a bicycle wheel horizontal so it can spin free, tie a blown up balloon to the perimeter, untie the opening and voil, angular momentum where none existed before!!!My suggestion is unchanged this year from last year and the year before and the year before that. Visit legitimate science sites and read real science books, then work to understand what they say.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

Conservation of momentum is an idealisation which only fully applies in special cases.

---

This appears to me to be an odd statement. Could you clarify what you mean by this?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

I hate to do this to you, Percy, but yes it did You can't turn ang-mom into energy. Cons of Energy is simply a statement of time-translation symmetery. Cons of Linear momentum comes from space-translation symmetry, and cons of ang-mom from space rotational symmetry. None of these three are interchangable.That said, the ideas in the website are some of the most cuckoo I have ever seen

I think that I may have misremembered, I plead that my basic physics is very rusty, it having been too many years since I last studied it.However it is true that momentum is only conserved in the absence of forces acting to change it.

If you go to the http://www.hyperflight.com site you'll see that PaulK is responding in the context of its ConceptOne page about momentum where it seems to be considering perfectly elastic balls. These are like the idealized billiard balls we studied in physics or mechanics where 100% of the momentum is transferred and none is lost to friction or compression losses, etc.Buz, if you're reading this, Hyperflight is an absolutely horrible site for science. Whoever created it hasn't a clue. Avoid it at all costs. In fact, avoid all nonsense sites. You're like the guy who every year actually believes he's won the Publisher's Clearinghouse prize. There's no creationist lottery out there to be won. The real world is what it is, you can't change its laws, you can only study it and learn about it. Genuine scientific knowledge comes from observational and/or experimental study which provides the information for building interpretational frameworks of understanding called theories. In other words, genuine scientific theories are built upon evidence from the real world. They're not just made up.What's really dangerous about the Hyperflight site is that while he does seem to understand science pretty well, he's only interested in using that knowledge to make his misinformation appear genuine. I don't know why he's doing it Buz, but he is. You're going to have to learn how to protect yourself from sites like this by learning how to tell sense from nonsense, otherwise you're doomed to forever return here from your trolling of the Internet with your nets filled with nothing but nonsense. How many times are you going to let the bastards fool you? They're not your friends, Buz. Their weird views are never going to find their way into any science class because they're just easily recognizable nonsense, not even up the the already incredibly low standards of Michael Behe who came off like a buffoon in Dover. They're more like Kent Hovind level stuff because they're just outright misrepresentations.Buz, you must at least know something about the way the world really works. How about car engines? Do you know how an internal combustion engine works? What would you think if I started telling you that the explosion of gas in the combustion chamber creates a spinning vortex that passes its energy through the piston to the crankshaft so that it, too, can spin. That's nonsense, right? And you can recognize it as nonsense, right? If you had a 5-year old child someone was telling this to they would probably believe it, but you know better, right?All we're telling you is that just like you know that there are people like yourself that understand how car engines work, you also must realize that there are people who know how things like momentum and energy and so forth work. They're actually fairly simple concepts, and if you'd stay away from sites like Hyperflight that can't do anything but misinform and confuse you could actually learn the correct information yourself. But the more you frequent these sites the harder it is going to be for you, because there's a lot of incorrect baggage you're going to have to somehow get rid of first. As Charley Brown once commented while watching Lucy give Linus an astronomy lesson, Linus is going to have to go to school twice as long as everyone else because he'll have to first unlearn everything Lucy taught him. You're putting yourself in a similar boat.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Are you sure we're talking about the same thing or am I missing something? A couple examples of what I'm talking about:Stationary bicycle wheel mounted horizontally. Bullet fired tangentially at the tire. Bullet has linear momentum. Bullet strikes tire and becomes trapped and embedded in the rubber. Bicycle wheel begins spinning. Linear momentum has become angular momentum.A rock on the end of a string is being whipped around in a circle. String breaks, rock goes straight. Angular momentum has become linear momentum.--Percy

To what is it mounted? What's doing the whipping? Not in this universe

I probably don't have time for 20 questions. As if I wasn't busy enough, the server is acting up today and has already been rebooted twice. If you'd like to explain this so I understand that would be great, but my primary focus in this thread is Buzsaw, who is already taking up too much of my time.One final example. Two asteroids hurtling toward each other through space with, believe it or not, no spin on any axis. They graze each other and begin spinning. Some linear momentum has been transformed into angular momentum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

I think that I may have misremembered, I plead that my basic physics is very rusty, it having been too many years since I last studied it.

---

Heh. That happens. I was just wondering if you were going to go into a cavediver-like explanation that at the very beginning of the universe, when plank scales become important, momentum is not a well-defined concept. I was floored, absolutely floored, when he told us on another thread that energy was not a well-defined concept on these scales.-

quote:

---

However it is true that momentum is only conserved in the absence of forces acting to change it.

---

That part is true. So a closed system (by definition isolated from outside forces), momentum will be conserved. Absolutely, as far as we know (barring temporary perturbations from the uncertainty principle).

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Okay, it's what I suspected. Yes, you're absolutely right, linear and angular momentum are separately conserved. Looking at http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/2002-10/msg0045095.html with two objects moving at constant velocities in different directions, it is clear the system has angular momentum and that this quantity will be conserved independent of linear momentum.But I'm pretty sure creationists are not thinking about the problem in this way. They're thinking of angular momentum as a property of something that is actually spinning, as in spinning on an axis or revolving in orbit about something, not as a property of any and all systems, even those in which all individual objects are moving in strictly linear motion.So creationists are free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they're thinking about angular momentum in terms of the actual everyday meaning of the word "spin". There's no law of conservation of "spin".--Percy

Ok, Ast1 and Ast2 have P1 and P2 linear mom and J1 and J2 ang mom.Assuming no loss of material in the slight collision:P1 + P2 (before) = P1 + P2 (after) (e.g. 100 + -75 = 80 + -55)J1 + J2 (before) = J1 + J2 (after)It just so happens that before, J1 = J2 = 0, so afterwards, J1 = -J2.There is absolutely NO possibility that any of the P has gone to produce J. It's like trying get bananas out of apples.In your other examples, you must account for changes in the ang mom of the Earth, small as they may be.

quote:

---

There's no law of conservation of "spin".

---

Indeed there is not. The earth, for example, is losing it's "spin" (slowly) to the angular momentum of the moon orbiting the earth (or, to be more accurate, the earth and moon orbiting the common center of mass). The moon shows the same face toward the earth because it long ago lost its "spin" to the earth-moon orbital angular momentum.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

I was wrong, too. Even in inelastic collisions momentum is conserved. I was imagining some of the kinetic energy being transformed into heat and so forth, and of course that will happen, but this cannot affect momentum.I find I'm now puzzled by a related problem. Imagine 2 perfectly elastic objects moving on a 2-dimensional frictionless surface. Object A has a mass of 1 kilogram and is moving at 2 meter/second, while object B has a mass of 2 kilograms and is stationary. Object A strikes object B head on, after which object A becomes stationary and object B is moving at 1 meter/second, which is necessary in order to conserve momentum.But the kinetic energy of object A was 2, while the kinetic energy of object B is now 1. Since energy must be conserved, what happened? Where'd the energy go?My guess is that the system is actually constrained by natural laws to behave in a certain way, and that it is actually impossible for object A to be stationary after the collision. It must rebound with a certain velocity, and object B must be imparted a smaller velocity than in my example, and when added together the kinetic energies must match the original kinetic energy of object A. I took a stab at solving the equations, but it was a bit daunting for a casual exercise, so I took a pass.--Percy