sci.physics

On 13 sep, 11:08, Sam Wormley wrote:
> s...@ wrote:
> > On 13 sep, 02:04, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> s...@ wrote:
>
> >>> I have been here 10 years and have discussed physics
> >>> systematically only with civil parties. You are not worthy of
> >>> discussing anything with except your obvious inadequacies.
> >> And it look like your starting to accumulate fumbles in the
> >> last couple of years, Andr=E9
> >> /search?q=3DMichaud+fumble+site% =

>
> > These so-called fumbles simply are points you cannot relate
> > to classical and Copenhagen physics, and consequently,
> > cannot understand.
>
> > Andr=E9 Michaud
>
> Andr=E9, how are you with classical mechanics and orbital dynamics?

I am fine with it, just as I am fine with E=3Dmv^2/2 for non
relativistic velocities.

What I was talking about was the fundamental underlying
mechanics. Classical mechanics does not distinguish
between uncompensated mechanically induced rotation
or orbital translation and stable force compensated
rotation and orbital translation.

The new mechanics does, and directly explains the Pioneers
so-called abnormal spin slown. As simple as that.

Andr=E9 Michaud