"g" paradox...

[iacob alex]

         Hi Yucca !

   In my opinion,the root of this paradox (apparently contradiction that,maybe contains within it  a germ of truth ) is reffering to that fictitious "point" mass.

   The gravity applies to every atomic nucleus,but the mass has a different distribution :linear (a board) or compact,around a center (ball).

   So,the real distribution of mass (atomic system),can  "unlock" this real (or illusory...?!) puzzle.

   Anyway,the classic physics teaches and demonstrates (see lab-demo) that ,here is a net difference if a mass falls on a vertical line (without inertia ),or on a circular,curved line/trajectory (with inertia)...

   The next step is on-the -spot:to imagine  a closed loop =curved fall down+linear rise up.

   At:   www.geocities.com/iacob_alex/Some_Drafts/untitled023.jpg  on the top of the page ,you can see this trajectory(blue line),for a certain application.

           All the Bests! / Alex         

[Yucca]

Hi Alex,

I'm still unsure, do you believe this effect might have hidden OU aspects to it?

I suppose the concept of "point mass" could be considered fictitious. But even if plancks constant does not apply to matter, if matter has infinite resolultion, if it is not a discreet system, then it will act exactly the same.

I fail (and it may be my failing) to see how whether it's a discreet or continuous system comes into play in this effect. Could you explain that a little further for me please?

Do you agree with my thought experiment above using the carbon fibre stick and weight? If so, can you see how a uniform stick obeys the same effect, just not as exagerated.

I assume you're not making the mistake of thinking all of the falling mass is at the tip, so I'm curious to know if you think there's something I may have missed here.

[Yucca]

   Anyway,the classic physics teaches and demonstrates (see lab-demo) that ,here is a net difference if a mass falls on a vertical line (without inertia ),or on a circular,curved line/trajectory (with inertia)...

   The next step is on-the -spot:to imagine  a closed loop =curved fall down+linear rise up.

   At:   www.geocities.com/iacob_alex/Some_Drafts/untitled023.jpg  on the top of the page ,you can see this trajectory(blue line),for a certain application.

           All the Bests! / Alex         

Curved fall down, linear rise up. I think the potential and kinetic energies involved in both will sum to exactly the same amount, just the interplay between potential and kinetic will be distributed differently in each case.

If you have a hunch that there's something to it then I can only recommend experimenting. In this field the experiments can be made with real cheap materials and really easily.

I'm not saying there's nothing to the idea, just that it doesn't excite me enough to go to the top of the list of experiments to perform. Weird effects can often be found while looking for other things, experimenting is good!

Something that's somewhat related is Bruce De Palmas experiments with a falling object. He dropped it spinning and he dropped it not spinning. He got different acceleration profiles....?:

http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html

Cheers, Yucca.

[AB Hammer]

Thank you Alex for posting.

What I see is that all the weights on the yardstick want to go down at the same time. But the yardstick is in the way. So there is more pressure on the yardstick to go faster on the loose end because of the weight of the upper end on the table. So it is accelerating the loose end of the yard stick.

[iacob alex]

  ....can give access to a simple unbalance relation ,for a possible  mass circulation (in a  closed gravity trajectory) : curvilinear fall down acceleration> linear jump up acceleration...?!

        All the Bests! / Alex