Hi Painterman,Painterman » January 4th, 2016, 10:24 am wrote:File this under "Balderdash"....

Source: http://milesmathis.com/angle.htmlTo start with, look again at the basic equations

p = mv

L = rmv

Where L is the angular momentum. This equation tells us we can multiply a linear momentum by a radius and achieve an angular momentum. Is that sensible? No. It implies a big problem of scaling, for example. If r is greater than 1, the effective angular velocity is greater than the effective linear velocity. If r is less than 1, the effective angular velocity is less than the effective linear velocity. How is that logical?

Utter nonsense. Regardless of the value of r, angular velocity and linear velocity are measured in different units, so it's an apples-and-oranges comparison from the get-go. Whether an object's angular velocity is numerically greater or less than its linear velocity is a consequence of your choice of units and has no significance beyond that.

I do not believe that you either understood or read consistently that paper from the link above.

Using nothing more than pure logic : current MSM formulas for linear and angular momentum imply exactly what Mathis has pointed to -> being a mix of apples and oranges. Yet the logic you applied to the written paper by MM and that of the MSM theory is twice mistaken.

Whether an object's angular velocity is (numerically) greater or smaller than its linear velocity is NOT a consequence of anyone's choice it is a matter of physics laws and thus mechanics is involved. It represents a fact, regardless of what humanoids wish to choose, and this fact should be represented in a formula, which should allow for the correct calculation and units of the result.

What Mathis logically concluded from the above MSM (!) formulas (p=mv; L=rmv) is consistent with reality - in two ways : it is not compliant in relation to the involved units (when we go from linear to angular momentum and vice versa) and it is not logical at all when radius (r) gets smaller than 1. Think about the latter as it implies logical error which is just absurd. Maybe I demand to much from you regarding it, however if it should be to much for you to understand its absurdity as-is , maybe you should avoid writing about it in demonstrated manner. Utter nonsense could be thrown back at you, easily, but with what intention? What could I possibly achieve with such an act?

What you properly showed, nevertheless, is the need to correct existing momentum equations not to be a mix of apples and oranges anymore. Could it be that Mathis is on top of it?