No insult intended but you are just making things up

That’s really not how science is advanced. You would be much better off trying to understand the current state of knowledge about gravity before inventing things that sound good to you.

It was kind of my understanding that our current state of knowledge seems to indicate that we need to think beyond our current state of knowledge.

 

There is an experiment in the kid's exhibit at the Smithsonian that I am trying to get info about.
It has two ramps: an inclined plane and a sort of sinusoidal ramp. A ball is placed at the top of each ramp and the viewer is asked to predict which ball will get to the bottom first. I think this one was done with ping pong balls. I have seen others with a wooden substrate and ball bearings.

 

There is an experiment in the kid's exhibit at the Smithsonian that I am trying to get info about.
It has two ramps: an inclined plane and a sort of sinusoidal ramp. A ball is placed at the top of each ramp and the viewer is asked to predict which ball will get to the bottom first. I think this one was done with ping pong balls. I have seen others with a wooden substrate and ball bearings.

What about it you want to know?
This is a classic exercise in a 1st year physics course.

 

What about it you want to know?
This is a classic exercise in a 1st year physics course.

I saw a video called 'Gravitational Illusions' posted by T Ross Kelly 9 years ago. The conclusion that I was left with was that when ball A plotted the amplitude of something like a sine wave, it achieved a greater time over distance efficiency than ball B, which followed an inclined plane.

This may true in the short term but I don't think this experiment ran long enough to give B a chance to reach terminal velocity. In the classical sense, ball B experiences gradual but continuous acceleration while ball A oscillates between acceleration and rapid approach to terminal velocity (TV) with every cycle. I think that in truth, both balls behave as ball A. It is just a question of scale and the ratio of wave length to the diameter of the ball.

So ball A has a TV with respect to (wrt) periodicity and a separate TV wrt the time/distance of the
of the experiment. It seems that ball B should eventually overtake ball A.

 

I saw a video called 'Gravitational Illusions' posted by T Ross Kelly 9 years ago. The conclusion that I was left with was that when ball A plotted the amplitude of something like a sine wave, it achieved a greater time over distance efficiency than ball B, which followed an inclined plane.

This may true in the short term but I don't think this experiment ran long enough to give B a chance to reach terminal velocity. In the classical sense, ball B experiences gradual but continuous acceleration while ball A oscillates between acceleration and rapid approach to terminal velocity (TV) with every cycle. I think that in truth, both balls behave as ball A. It is just a question of scale and the ratio of wave length to the diameter of the ball.

So ball A has a TV with respect to (wrt) periodicity and a separate TV wrt the time/distance of the
of the experiment. It seems that ball B should eventually overtake ball A.

But that is not the objective of the experiment.
The objective is to find the path that a ball would have to traverse in order to reach the end point in the shortest time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve

https://www.mathcad.com/en/blogs/brachistochrone-curve-explained-mathcad

 

I saw a video called 'Gravitational Illusions' posted by T Ross Kelly 9 years ago. The conclusion that I was left with was that when ball A plotted the amplitude of something like a sine wave, it achieved a greater time over distance efficiency than ball B, which followed an inclined plane.

This may true in the short term but I don't think this experiment ran long enough to give B a chance to reach terminal velocity. In the classical sense, ball B experiences gradual but continuous acceleration while ball A oscillates between acceleration and rapid approach to terminal velocity (TV) with every cycle. I think that in truth, both balls behave as ball A. It is just a question of scale and the ratio of wave length to the diameter of the ball.

So ball A has a TV with respect to (wrt) periodicity and a separate TV wrt the time/distance of the
of the experiment. It seems that ball B should eventually overtake ball A.

Hi,

With ping pong balls I would think air friction would have a part in the acceleration and speed. They are very light weight. I would think that the longer the path, the more friction they would encounter. That would complicate the problem a little it would no longer be just about gravity and mass.
In movements, friction would enter into the denominator somewhere which means the speed would decrease with higher friction. Since it would not be alone in the denominator but would add to some other quantity that could be different for the two tracks, the overall speed would be different. It's doubtful if the outcome would be the same as without friction. Maybe do it in a vacuum chamber, or maybe heavier balls to reduce the effects of the extra friction, although that would increase the ball to track friction effects.

 

But that is not the objective of the experiment.
The objective is to find the path that a ball would have to traverse in order to reach the end point in the shortest time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachistochrone_curve

https://www.mathcad.com/en/blogs/brachistochrone-curve-explained-mathcad

Ok, so brachistochrone is commonly applied as a conversion of free fall to forward momentum, yes? Such would be the case with a glider. And it is a beautiful thing. I can imagine going off a high cliff, pitching downward until I had enough wind to push the tail down. Then, opening the planes and beginning to ride a bed of compressed air over to the next down phase or updraft.

 

Hi,

With ping pong balls I would think air friction would have a part in the acceleration and speed. They are very light weight. I would think that the longer the path, the more friction they would encounter. That would complicate the problem a little it would no longer be just about gravity and mass.
In movements, friction would enter into the denominator somewhere which means the speed would decrease with higher friction. Since it would not be alone in the denominator but would add to some other quantity that could be different for the two tracks, the overall speed would be different. It's doubtful if the outcome would be the same as without friction. Maybe do it in a vacuum chamber, or maybe heavier balls to reduce the effects of the extra friction, although that would increase the ball to track friction effects.

I agree. Still, ping pong balls will gives us a quicker but cruder answer. I think now that that particular experiment was with racquetballs.

 

Ok, so brachistochrone is commonly applied as a conversion of free fall to forward momentum, yes? Such would be the case with a glider. And it is a beautiful thing. I can imagine going off a high cliff, pitching downward until I had enough wind to push the tail down. Then, opening the planes and beginning to ride a bed of compressed air over to the next down phase or updraft.

I think Kelly's ramp may have been a part of a school kit. I have seen that same ramp in another video.
I am after the dimensions of the set up but I think I can make some decent approximations if I don't get them.

I want to extend the experiment further into time and see if I can identify any harmonic correlation between these types of oscillations to a ratio of some sort between the strong and weak nuclear forces.
I think a proton exerts about 400 pounds per .84 fm² across it's surface of influence. That force is opposed by whatever electrons are nearby and some other forces as well. I understand that we are talking about point particles but I think the measurements could still prove useful.

 

View attachment 305426

This image reminds me of a discussion I had with a flat-earther. When I challenged him to explain the world’s different time zones, he sent me the image of a pizza. No further explanation required, he said

 

I am going to estimate that the load bearing portion of Mr Kelly's ramp is constructed from a piece of 1 x 4 which has been further planed to a thickness of about 11∕16“ . I think the ball bearings are around 9/16", give or take.

 

This image reminds me of a discussion I had with a flat-earther. When I challenged him to explain the world’s different time zones, he sent me the image of a pizza. No further explanation required, he said
View attachment 306384

I think I can see my house from here!

 

There is an experiment in the kid's exhibit at the Smithsonian that I am trying to get info about.
It has two ramps: an inclined plane and a sort of sinusoidal ramp. A ball is placed at the top of each ramp and the viewer is asked to predict which ball will get to the bottom first. I think this one was done with ping pong balls. I have seen others with a wooden substrate and ball bearings.

This figure is called a cycloid and it has some very interesting properties.

 

This works 2d if the center of the pizza is the Arctic circle and it was cut into more pieces. Looks Antarctica is backing out of the situation though.

 

This figure is called a cycloid and it has some very interesting properties.

One of those properties is it's elegance.

 

One of those properties is it's elegance.

And, I can see how you could use this to see how much ground clearance you would need for something like a hang glider.

 

I am going to endeavor to construct something that might be appropriately be called a 'Garbage Model of Gravity'. Some of the garbage will be contributed by others.

General assumption:
Any wave is gravitational wrt to whatever it is approaching and anti-gravitational to what it leaves behind. It can be attracted or repelled.

The objective is to find the points on the ramp that resonate as the balls approach the same phase lineage.

We are going to change the surface area of the ball bearings from 0.9940195505499 in^2 to reflect integer increments of .84 fm^2. The fm(s) are what need to be adjusted to fine tune the resonance.
This is based on what I call the 'principle of chimes'. Chime potentials are located at integer intervals of standing waves. Stringed instruments demonstrate this very well.

 

I am going to endeavor to construct something that might be appropriately be called a 'Garbage Model of Gravity'. Some of the garbage will be contributed by others.

General assumption:
Any wave is gravitational wrt to whatever it is approaching and anti-gravitational to what it leaves behind. It can be attracted or repelled.

The objective is to find the points on the ramp that resonate as the balls approach the same phase lineage.

We are going to change the surface area of the ball bearings from 0.9940195505499 in^2 to reflect integer increments of .84 fm^2. The fm(s) are what need to be adjusted to fine tune the resonance.
This is based on what I call the 'principle of chimes'. Chime potentials are located at integer intervals of standing waves. Stringed instruments demonstrate this very well.

Can you explain what you are talking about?

What is "phase lineage" as you refer to it here, and what does it matter?
Where did that startlingly precise surface area come from?
Why is the significance of a "chime potential", what does it add to the ideas of resonance and standing waves?

Without a stated hypothesis and definitions of terms, how can you have a "theory" of anything?

 

Show me the math that results in planetary orbits. Then I might look at your “theory.”

 

You guys are spending too much time and only validating a crackpot.