Re: Am I right ?

I have hinted to 1st law of newton already in my statement.
The problem is the detailed kinemetical descriptive example which
lacks my statement.
The person i am trying to say is of the view that the smaller body
should plainly translate.
He might be satisfied if provided by some published matter
corroborating my point.

RJ Khan

RJKhan wrote:

   ...


I find little satisfaction in convincing a fool to accept my opinion. If
he doesn't believe in  the conservation of angular momentum, what more
is there to demonstrate?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF

Right!

Atleast THIS conerstation will do

By the way plz dont mind me insisting

Best regards

¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯
¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯AF¯

The little object will have energy stored in it in the form of kinetic
energy (one half times mass times translational velocity squared)
because it is moving relative to the surface it is on.  It will also
have energy in the form of rotational energy (one half times mass
moment of inertial times rotational speed squared - rotational speed
is measured in radians per second), and it may also have energy in the
form of potential energy (equal to mass times height times
gravitational constant).

There is also heat energy and chemical energy stored in the little
object but it won't matter here.  You can find all of this in a
Dynamics text or a Physics text.  This would fall into the category of
conservation of energy.  It's probably in the section which explains
impact.