??? really??? !!! this is very soft and flexible tubing if a ball is pressed harder into it's surface it will sink deeper in , guaranteedD_Archer wrote: Because he specifically bought this type of tubing to make sure friction is not an issue..
This defies the evidence of our own eye !! we can clearly see on the video the ball moves in a circular path , I suggest you are allowing a theoretical notion to override the evidence of your own eyesD_Archer wrote:
Steven measured frame by frame and indeed there was no slowdown (same velocity), and thus yes because of the extra direction the path is effectively longer..
The orientation of the spin axis is constantly changing as it moves around the curved path , this requires a force , and perhaps work ... the ball in the curved path is not with it's spin axis at 90* to the table , this would require zero gravity or infinite centrifugal force , the angle is somewhere between 0 and 90 ( dependent on the speed of the ball ,hence on it's path around the curved path, the axis is constantly changing orientation.D_Archer wrote:The spin is not constantly changing, the ball spins one way only, you may have point that after falling down at the start of the curve the ball has to change orientation and cling to the side of the tube, but that is 1 moment and as measured that 1 moment did not slow down the ball, it is continues motion.
---
I think it's better to consider it has one direction , which is changing due to the force from the tube wall.D_Archer wrote:Can you see or do you agree that to make a curve any object has to make 2 directions? This is the simplest explanation of the difference. (to my simple mind).
D_Archer wrote:Below Miles about this experiment.
ps. http://milesmathis.com/pi7.pdf
I was not impressed with that link....The main problem is we've all become armchair scientist ...theorising all day long , non of us (including me) can be bothered to perform the simple experiments , which I'm sure would very quickly clear this matter up ...
Best Regards ...oz