bongostaple » October 9th, 2016, 4:29 pm wrote:
There absolutely is an appreciable lag - in both cases. At the first quarter mark, the circle path ball has travelled a quarter of a revolution of the circular path, and the straight path ball has travelled a quarter of the line from '0' to '4'.
YES! THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE EXPERIMENT!
These two markers are not in any way equivalent in distance travelled.
They are not equivalent in geometric length as measured by a ruler, or billiard balls, or whatever, but when you are traveling that path in a circle, they are equivalent in distance traveled, which is what the experiment is all about.
In the time the straight path ball travelled a quarter of four, or 'one diameter', the circle path ball travelled (pi * d) / 4 which works out at about 79% of the straight path first marker distance.
Conclusion: We are seeing a 21% miss.
YES, AT LEAST WE CAN AGREE ON THAT!
But here is the point that you seem to be missing (either deliberately or due to sheer inability to comprehend): a slow down due to friction or whatever other cockamamie force you can come up with will be cumulative
. Please take a moment to look that word up in a dictionary. That means that the ball should become slower and slower the longer it is in the circle. So that at the beginning, it will be a little bit
slower than the straight ball, but by the end, it will be a lot
slower. In other words, it would get gradually slower.
OK, now try to follow me here: The 4 quarters of the circle are equidistant from each other (that means they are spaced the same distance apart from each other, about 13.8cm). The 4 marks on the straight tube are equidistant from each other (17.6cm apart). We see in the video that the ball hits the 1/4 mark in the circle at the same time as the 1/4 mark on the straight tube. It also hits the 3/4 mark at the same time as it hits the 3/4 mark on the straight tube. (Bongo are you still paying attention? Wake up!) If the ball was gradually getting slower due to the cumulative force of friction or whatever, this would not happen
. Instead what we would see is something like this: the straight and circular balls would hit the first quarter mark at the same time, but the straight ball would hit the 3/4 mark long before
the ball in the circle hit its 3/4 marks. But that's not what we see. Not by a long shot. They appear to hit the 1/4 and 3/4 marks at almost exactly the same time.
(In fact, if the slow down is gradual and the overall difference between the two times is a 21% miss, that means the average
difference in time would be 21%, in which case after the halfway point the slowdown would be greater than 21% and by the 3/4 mark it would be something like 31.5% slower).
As it stands, the experiment clearly shows the balls travelling different distances in the same length of time
No!!! That's what you think the experiment is showing but the evidence clearly points the other way: the balls are actually traveling the same distance
in the same amount of time
, because the circumference of a circle in kinematic situations is 4, not 3.14, just like it is in a cycloid: http://milesmathis.com/cycloid.pdf
Whether it's friction, centripetal, a combination, or whatever forces, the experimental results show a slowing down.
No, no, no, and no. What you are saying is that there is a force acting on the ball that gives it an instantaneous
21% slowdown as it enters the circle. So it cannot be friction
, as we've just seen (for the umpteenth time), because that is cumulative
. And you have been shown by me and Seneca why it cannot be the centripetal force. Let me say that again so it has a chance to penetrate your skull: it cannot be the centripetal force
. You can't just invent forces or insist that there must be 'whatever forces' to slow it down. You don't know why it does what it does, and you can't explain it. Yet you insist Miles's explanation simply cannot
be correct. You just know
it. You have the misplaced confidence of somebody who simply has no idea what's going on. Why? Why can't it be correct? You have no clue. In that case, I'm not sure you belong on clues
[Argghhh...I know I said I wouldn't answer any more of these half-assed, half-baked comments by people who haven't bothered to read his work, but I'm weak. I'm weak. May the forum Gods have mercy on my soul.]