If this YouTube video is correct, then pi in motion is 4, meaning that the ratio between the time an object takes to travel around a circle at constant speed is the same as the time it takes to travel 4 times the radius of the circle at that same speed. I highly recommend you watch the video since it is quite intriguing.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhuvUSS3KAENow, an obvious issue with this video is that it does not measure the speed after the loop, so we may wonder if it is simply friction that slowed the looping ball down. To measure the speed after the loop I have designed a different setup which I will soon build, and I would like for any mathematicians or physicists or engineers to look at my design and then type "OP is a retard" or even offer some constructive criticism. The point of the design is to have a whole circle's worth of curve, and then a straight segment, and for this all to be flat.Thank you.
>>13260900>>13260925> To measure the speed after the loop I have designed a different setup which I will soon buildplease do this and come back because this thread and your images literally couldn't be any more complicated and harder to understand.
The assumption that the balls’ velocity remains constant is unfounded. Furthermore, while the ball on the straight track experiences friction due to gravity, the ball in the loop exerts more pressure while traveling in a circular motion due to it’s change in direction. This means that it also experiences more friction, which would explain the perceived effect.
Read green_dogs comment on the video, I can't screenshot/copy on mobile. When you account for the additional angular motion the ball in the tube has you find that it is enough to slow the ball to roughly 3/4 (pi/4) the speed of the ball in the straight tube which explains the phenomenon.
>>13262925why does friction increase with pi?
it completely and utterly violates newtonian physics. assuming this man isn't lying (or isn't totally incompetent), then he discovered a phenomenon that SHATTERS physics as we know it and he deserves a nobel prize.or, you know, he's just a crank.a marble falling down a track does not magically gain or lose speed unless work is performed on it
>>13260900>If this YouTube video is correct, then pi in motion is 4it isn't. full stop.
>>13263709it doesn't. that's the whole point. under no interpretation does pi=4.
>>13263777okay then, at what rate does an object decelerate while traveling in a curve? Assuming friction is minimalits an easy question to answer anon
>>13263787>at what rate does an object decelerate while traveling in a curve>its an easy question to answer anonyes[math] \dot v=f [/math]
>>13263787>>13263799I can even be more specific before you try and say something pedantic[eqn] \dot v=\mu v^2/\rho [/eqn] assuming dry friction. rho is radius of curvature.
>>13263799>he doesn't know what angular momentum is
>>13263811and here's yet another expression of the same thing if you have some other made-up objection, Doctor Physicist[eqn] \dot L=\mu L^2/m \rho^2 [/eqn]
>>13263811would you like more equations of rate, anon? here's one with energy, if you want. [math] dT/dt=\mu mv^3/\rho [/math]
>>13263811god what a retard you are. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and not call you a pseud right away, but it looks like you outed yourself!
>>13263782pi = 4 where ciel(pi)
>>13263811you can also express the rate with angular speed only! [math] \dot\omega=\mu\omega^2 [/math]Want to see it with linear momentum and moment of inertia instead? [math] \dot p=\mu I v^2/\rho^3 [/math]genuinely in shock at how illiterate you are
>>13262112It’s literally one straight tube, and one tube with 2 curves.All the lengths are given. Everything is explained.Maybe you have difficulty maintaining attention.
>>13262925Right. So if it is friction that explains the linked video, then in my experiment we would see that the ball 1 has slowed down, on the last straight segment.
>>13263447Yes, that is why I am doing this experiment. To confirm this theory.In my experiment we will see that in the last straight segment, ball 1 is slower than ball 2.
>>13263754Yes. Which is why it bugs the hell out of me that in the video, the ball curving ball does exactly 1/4 turn every time the other ball does 1 diameter, rather than slowing down (apparently).
>>13263777Right.And my experiment will prove that you are correct.
>>13260900Pretty sure there is energy loss in the rotation so it would come out slower, also I didn't read your post.
>>13260900>pi in motion
>>13264949Right. Enjoy your international fame for debunking Newton.
>>13264947it doesn't bug me because I dont take the video at face value
>>13265795I’m glad for you.I envy people who can just ignore things based on what authority says is true.Must be comfy.
>>13266551It must be bizarre living in a world were credentials and replicability mean nothing
>>13266583but credentials do mean nothing.
>>13266583>replicability mean nothingnobody else has attempted to replicate or simulate this problem, so really, youre a fag
>>13265640I’m doing it anonymously, whatever I find.
>>13266605I did. Didnt work like he claims it does.
>>13266621No you didn't.I did and it worked.
>>13266603lol okay pseudhave fun roleplaying as a physicist
>>13266635Crazy. I reccomend you show your result to someone that matters and win your international fame + gorillions of dollars for knowing something no mechanical engineer in the entire world is aware of.
>>13266643Why would mechanical engineers be aware of this?They use trials and calibration all the time. No need for precise predictions.
>>13266627Yeah. I will post a video on sci, and privately contact the people pushing this crazy theory.
>>13266583It must be bizarre living in a world where for centuries credential meant being a high ranking member of the Catholic Church, and where there are obvious pressures on scientists to not say anything that sounds too crazy until everyone is (dark matter, strings), where Ignaz Semmelweis is known, where there is a real issue with replicability in general, where noone actually has tried to replicate this experiment, and saying what you are saying.I am literally trying to replicate his experiment. How much lead paint did you eat?
>>13266621You went through the hassle of replicating it and didn’t keep any footage and data that you might share?
>>13266638I'm not that guy.
>>13266821>Why would mechanical engineers be aware of thisbecause presumably they know high school newtonian physics. Do you?
>>13263787>deceleratePseud. There is only acceleration, and negative acceleration. "Decelerate" is a nebulous and ambiguous term that physicists avoid using. Kys.
>>13263799Hey, what's the dot above notation mean?T. Chemist, never seen that
>>13266621>>13266870Inb4 pedantic fuck*you failed to replicate it
>>13260900If you really set the thing up and manage to measure that frictionless movement breaks Newtonian physics, congratulations. It will shake the world.
>>13266913Cute notation then, I'll use it in rate laws and confuse professors. Why not just write a? Habit?
>>13266926idk its just nice to clearly say "the rate of change of the speed is ... "
>>13266888Refute a single point I made instead of resorting to name calling like a little partisan.
>>13266937it order to do that I would first have to have a reason to read you post. Not gonna read your schizobabble about the catholic church and some literal who or whatever you wrote. Sorry!
>>13266920Yeah. I’m guessing that I will just put to rest the nagging feeling I get when I remember that youtube video, but the other thing would be cool too.
>>13266943>the other thing would be cool toowhat?
>>13266941>Ignaz Semmelweis >literally whoAh I see. You are actually ignorant. Cool, enjoy your video games or whatever.
>>13266950Well failing to reproduce the experiment would be nice and I could stop thinking about this silliness.But breaking Newtonian physics would be cool too I guess.
>>13266962>Well failing to reproduce the experiment would be niceyou would just be confirming what is already known to be true
>>13266954I study physics, I dont memorize the biographies of 19th century nerds, nerd.
>>13266962Do research the way you want to. If this video got you itching, then build a track and test it. What's the worst that can happen?I'll tell you now that standard physics state that the loop will be slower due to increased friction, and you can test that by slowly decreasing the friction and checking the time-difference. If the loop is really slower in some meta way then if you project the data to zero friction you'll find something weird.
>>13266976If you take any interest in science, you should know him. Ignaz Semmelweis is the most famous cautionary tale about peer pressure preventing progress. >muh GalileoYeah his ideas got him in trouble with the Church, not other scientists. And his ideas got disseminated. Semmelweis was fought by his peers, and his ideas had to be rediscovered. >I study physicsYou sound like you are just beginning desu. History of science is important when thinking about present progress. You actually sound like a retarded zoomer. So yeah, go enjoy your video games.
>>13266987Ok but my question is (since I’m not sure how to measurably increase/decrease friction), shouldn’t this setup work?In this setup, after the curve there is a straight line. So I can calculate the speed after the loop, and if it was just friction then the speed would be lower accordingly. My question is whether there are any issues with this experiment.
>>13266987I guess one issue I’m afraid of is people saying>no you can’t prove anything because the ball is rolling not sliding blah blah
>>13267028if its just friction then you have a few ways to test that. loops of different size with the same initial drop/acceleration is one. and you can modify the test by forcing a change in friction. like maybe using a textured marble or roughing up the bearing, maybe even testing lower friction with oil and lube.
>>13266887I dont, can you explain?
>>13267201friction is comparable to the normal force between the marble and its trackwith the addition of a loop, the normal force increaseshence the marble slows downwithout friction, it's speed would not change in the absence of work
>>13267215****friction is proportional to the normal force between the marble and its track
>>13260900BASED Miles Mathis vindicated
>>13266887Yes this is why they would assume that. But at what point would anything they do test it?They go with that assumption and if predictions don’t match they just test and calibrate. Do you understand what I am saying or are you an idiot?
>>13266821>No need for precise predictions [in mechanical engineering]lol?
>>13267613Verifying newton's laws and elementary physics isn't the job of mechanical engineers, anon
>>13267744And verifying medical science isn’t the job of doctors. Hence them recommending smoking for years, and circumcision still today. They just go with the assumptions of their trade, and don’t fret about challenges to their preconceptions.Similarly, the fact that engineers are not aware of this doesn’t prove it is wrong. They rely more on testing and calibration than on predictions, for anything accurate.
>>13267754>Hence them recommending smoking for yearsnever happened. didn't read the rest.
>>13267947They thought it prevented tuberculosis and had no idea it could cause lung cancer till the 50s. Most doctors smoked, and yes they did recommend it.
>>13266972An important and often overlooked part of scientific experimentation.
>>13267220yes this is true but the video showed it slowing down in relation to pi, what does newton say about that? maybe something else he almost discovered but didnt?