Erick Mead wrote:
Ah, yes, well, that
(tensegrity = discontinuous compression spaceframes) is certainly an "improvement" (cough) over angular momentum -- in terms of common knowledge
More to the point, irrelevant. Tensegrity is structural means, not a mechanical principle. Tensegrity structures obey the same mechanical dynamic principles as anything else.
Your angular moment theory, as tortured as it is in its attempt to appear refined, is by no means a fully fleshed-out representation of the complexities involved in movement. I've resisted saying that in some of your past glissandos and trillings about how physically accurate you're trying to be, but let's lay the hyperbole to rest, shall we? I understand the thrust of your argument; you understand the thrust of mine. Neither "model" is exact, but at least people reading the thread can get a quick idea of what I'm getting at without having to endure a peeing contest about whose physical analysis most accurately reflects the statics and dynamics of complicated physical movement.