The Instigator
abstractposters
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FourTrouble
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

All particles with angular motion are in a radius approaching 0.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
FourTrouble
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,963 times Debate No: 25051
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

abstractposters

Con

A first state of motion does not occur when a rigid body undergoes rotational motion. The tangential motion of each particle is insufficient to increase proportionally with the radius from the axis of rotation and only the radius of the particle in the axis of rotation approaches 1. By approaching one the rigid body has an angular motion.

Wikipedia's Article On Rigid Bodies: http://en.wikipedia.org...
FourTrouble

Pro

"The electron (as far as we know) is a structureless point particle, and its spin angular momentum cannot be composed into orbital angular momentum of constituent parts." - from Griffith's "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics," the standard undergrad textbook on the subject. [1]

My opponent's argument completely misrepresents the laws of physics. As far as physicists know, particles are not rigid bodies, they are points (or in physics what we call "fields") with a radius of 0. Therefore, everything my opponent has argued does not apply to particles.

If the angular momentum of a particle came from the particle actually spinning around, and the particle had some kind of radius, then the particle would have to spin much quicker than the speed of light. Of course, this is physically impossible.

There are proofs that show all particles are 0-dimensional or 1-dimensional. In either case, all particles have a radius of 0. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed.

[1] http://www.physics.sjtu.edu.cn...
Debate Round No. 1
abstractposters

Con

A second state of rotation does not describe the semi-rigid body undergoes motion. The tangential motion of each particle is insufficient to increase proportionally with the radius from the axis of rotation and only a passing of a particle is conservative. There is not an external force at all to pass this particle, let alone sufficiently remove that particle.

A first state of motion does not occur when a rigid body undergoes rotational motion. The tangential motion of each particle is insufficient to increase proportionally with the radius from the axis of rotation and only the radius of the particle in the axis of rotation approaches 1. By approaching one the rigid body has an angular motion.

Wikipedia's Article On Rigid Bodies: http://en.wikipedia.org...
FourTrouble

Pro

I am having a hard time understand what my opponent is talking about. If I am not mistaken, my opponent argues that the angular momentum of a rigid body comes from "tangential motion," by which I believe my opponent means the "orbital angular momentum" of the particles in a rigid body (a rigid body is a collection of particles). Then, my opponent (I might be giving him too much credit here, as I'm filling in the holes in his argument...) states the same thing I said in the previous round: for a rigid body to have 0 radius, the particles which make up the rigid body would have to move faster than the speed of light. I already explained why this is not physically possible.

There are many other problems with my opponent's argument. For example, particles are not rigid bodies. Rigid bodies are made up of particles, and can have a radius, but the issue at stake in this debate is that of particles, not rigid bodies.

I have clearly shown that particles do not have a radius. Hence, the resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 2
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by abstractposters 5 years ago
abstractposters
I am happy that you have seen the idea.
Posted by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
I get that now....after spending far to much time looking into his premise and coming up empty.

Then of course, there's the debate I entered with him. (Sigh)....at least it will count toward my win ratio.
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
He's trolling. He posts nonsense in all of his debates.
Posted by abstractposters 5 years ago
abstractposters
Posted by abstractposters 5 years ago
abstractposters
Tom Tong has it backwards from what is the equivalent.
Posted by abstractposters 5 years ago
abstractposters
HA HA! You reek! JA!
Posted by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
So you're not talking about the rigidity of a structure, but rather that the point of rotation of the structure is rigid, if we account for inertial input.

So how is this supposed to work? The debate title states that the radius approaches zero. Are you talking about an entropic process, a "winding down" of momentum that eventually causes the particle to approach zero?
Your arguments appear to argue the opposite, in the sense that you claim the particle is always at zero (relative to external force), rather than approaching zero.

Do you have like a youtube video or something, 'cause my nose just started bleeding.
Posted by abstractposters 5 years ago
abstractposters
GenesisCreation, our outlook is based on that of an angular motion about our own center. I am just saying, if you take into consideration our external force or net force, then we are rigid.
Posted by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
Con as per your source, the radius of a particle with angular motion is measured at the point of rotation. In order for you to state your claim axiomatically, you would have to establish if the axis of rotation is perfect. Even a slight wobble will increase the radius of the point of rotation. I don't believe you will find a particle in perfectly rigid rotation, unless it's been mounted on rigid poles. (Consider a globe rotating on a fixed axis, versus the actual planet).

If I'm not understanding this correctly, please correct me. I'm intrigued by this topic and not very knowledgeable on it.
Posted by abstractposters 5 years ago
abstractposters
slow down lead foot
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
abstractpostersFourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: He's just trolling.