From: heathjohn2@gmail.com   
      
   On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 10:02:34 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:   
   > On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 6:50:28 AM UTC-4, John Heath wrote:   
   >> On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 5:21:47 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:   
   > []   
   >>>   
   >>> John Heath,   
   >>> you seem to be searching for a means to escape the conservation   
   >>> of energy. Many others seem to follow this same path (as judged   
   >>> by the many flawed perpetual motion videos on youtube). The motion   
   >>> of rotation is one that fascinates us humans (evidenced by how many   
   >>> amusement rides are based on rotation!).  Verbal descriptions   
   >>> fail in conveying the interactions involved.  I sincerely suggest   
   >>> more study and experimentation on your part, then your understanding   
   >>> will come.   
   >>>   
   >>>  Ed   
   >>   
   >> I am starting to understand. You are not on the working end of physics   
   >> where measurements are made. I am an old ham at this so I can help.   
   >   
   > You guess whether I work in physics and your guess is wrong,   
   > though I do not work in university research.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> A] You do not apply for a grant to prove free energy as the answer will   
   >> be no and is a red flag of a questionable understanding physics.   
   >>   
   >> B] You do not apply for a grant to prove a violation to the conservation   
   >> of momentum as the answer will be no for the same reasons said above.   
   >>   
   >> C] You do not apply for a grant to prove momentum may be exchanged for   
   >> energy as it happens every day when two cars crash head on turning   
   >> momentum into energy.   
   >   
   > The distraction of what I do or not does not change the results.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> There is not a need to test A B or C as they are known to be true with   
   >> experiments that have already been done.   
   >   
   > Yes.   
   >>   
   >> The question at hand is conservation of momentum or is it conservation   
   >> of the center of mass. I think it is the latter as momentum may be   
   >> exchanged for energy as stated in C.   
   >   
   > Kinetic energy can be exchanged for heat energy.   
   > Momentum is different than energy.   
   >>   
   >> Now that we are back on subject I would enjoy hearing thoughts on   
   >> this. Is it momentum or the center of mass that is being conserved?   
   >   
   > newton's laws of motion can be applied as the laws of translation   
   > (motion of the center of mass) and laws of rotation (rotation about   
   > the center of mass).   
   >   
   > So both follow equivalent laws of motion. For example,   
   > An object moving will continue with the same speed in a straight line.   
   > An object rotating will continue rotating on the same axis.   
   >   
   > So please, if you wish to continue, learn correct physics.   
   > Momentum is not energy. If you do not understand this, then   
   > there is no use for further discussion.   
   >   
   > Sincerely wishing to help you,   
   >    Ed   
      
   I want to nip this one in the bud before it grows. I apologize for my   
   words upsetting you. My fault for not double checking before sending a   
   post. I do not think your understanding of physics shallow.   
      
   I can give you a little trick that I use to prevent this. Just before   
   sending I reread my post to make sure it does not make me feel   
   good. Feeling good is the red flag that this is not a physics post so   
   rewrite it.  Works for me :<).   
      
   And to show I do have respect for your physics I will raise the bar a   
   bit. 2 objects of equal mass are moving away from each other at .1 c   
   caused by an explosion between them . Equal mass and equal speed so   
   momentum is conserved. One fly in the soup.  One of the masses is   
   radioactively decaying losing mass over time. How is momentum conserved   
   under these conditions. I do not have a clear answer to this question.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)