Terragravitic Induction

[agor95]

Hi eccentrically

I thought the thread was about a ball arriving first down a cycloid slope before a diagonal one.
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view ... Ywo5x0p5Le

This thread is about acceleration due to gravity. And a person who likes creating pseudo words.
One could say ersatz knowledge. In effect a limited example of knowledge.

The original demo did show an increase in acceleration up to the same end velocity from a initial zero velocity start.

Another interpretation is the ball rolling down the straight ramp is supported [pushed up] all along it's path.
The cycloid slop this [pushing up] starts small and increases over time.

As we can see any increase of speed during it's path has to be returned to reach the same end height.

Is there energy generation at any point?

What measure would you use to qualify such a declaration?

Does the first straight slop supply more energy to the ball in the end or does the cycloid path?
Or are they the same?

Now from this difference in time taken. What people do is look for is an exploit.

That is what is being looked at in the thread.

[johannesbender]

Two people each moves a 1kg mass over a distance of 1 meter , person A does it in 1 minute , person b does it in 2 minutes .

Who did the most work , who used less or more energy ?

[agor95]

Two people each moves a 1kg mass over a distance of 1 meter , person A does it in 1 minute , person b does it in 2 minutes .

Who did the most work , who used less or more energy ?

That is a good question? What is the final kinetic energy of the 1kg mass at the end of the metre distance.

Person A accelerated the 1 kg twice as fast so the mass will be travelling with more velocity.

Therefore Person A will have spent more energy to move the mass. But has left the mass with more K.E. at the end.

Now this in not set in concrete but the a falling ball ended up with the same K.E. as they both had the same velocity.
So the question you have supplied kind of crumbles like a roof falling in on school children. [Official Secrete Act].
Or badly tested building insulation made of combustible material covered in aluminium. That metal burns at hot temperatures.

[johannesbender]

As per the topic , same KE .

[Senax]

Now this in not set in concrete but the a falling ball ended up with the same K.E. as they both had the same velocity.

The ball isn't falling. It's rolling down a slope.
The H ball is rolling down a straight slope.
The L ball is rolling down and up a cycloid slope.
The L ball receives more reaction energy from its slope than the H ball receives from its slope.
That is why it gets to the same point earlier.

[agor95]

They do have the same instantaneous kinetic energy in the end
But they do not have the same cumulative kinetic energy.

As we have seen on the first post, all those pages before, a ball in free fall arrives at the bottom with it's Potential Energy converted to Kinetic Energy.
However it's not moving horizontally at all.

instantaneous kinetic energy vs cumulated kinetic energy.

Well the Kinetic Energy at a moment in time is 'instantaneous' this is a word for the sake of padding out the obvious.

When a person does try and cumulate kinetic energy in some ersatz formula you add the changes of speed from one instant to the next. The pluses and the minuses to arrive at the final K.E.

I a person tries adding the absolute speed from one small time step to another then the K.E. they calculate will be different depending on the track length and number of time steps selected.

When you start to move the ball from the vertical to create more horizontal motion.
Then the ball drops down at a slower rate of acceleration as it increases it's horizontal acceleration.

The question I have is what happens when the cycloid path is ramped around a cone shape?

[Senax]

Did you take any STEM subjects at university, agor.?

[eccentrically1]

I thought the thread was about a ball arriving first down a cycloid slope before a diagonal one.
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view ... Ywo5x0p5Le

That was an introduction to the subject of more energy being generated from the cycloid curve than
from the straight line decent by the action of Terragravitic Induction.

That’s not what it shows. It only tells us the cycloid is a faster descent.
Which definition of induction are you using here anyway?

[WaltzCee]

.
.
the fastest descent is straight down. If slapped down, velocity increases.

• My speculation is the force on the ascent has to exceed escape velocity.

[Senax]

I thought the thread was about a ball arriving first down a cycloid slope before a diagonal one.
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view ... Ywo5x0p5Le

That was an introduction to the subject of more energy being generated from the cycloid curve than
from the straight line decent by the action of Terragravitic Induction.

That’s not what it shows. It only tells us the cycloid is a faster descent.
Which definition of induction are you using here anyway?

The diagram we are talking about was shown in my post of Fri 09 Jun, 2023 1:11 pm.
It is shown again in the next post.

[Senax]

[/quote]

[eccentrically1]

You’re saying the faster descent gains more energy ? Because of “induction”?
What definition of induction ate you using here?

[Senax]

You’re saying the faster descent gains more energy ? Because of “induction”?
What definition of induction are you using here?

Mine.

[eccentrically1]

And that is what?

[Senax]

.
.
the fastest descent is straight down. If slapped down, velocity increases.

• My speculation is the force on the ascent has to exceed escape velocity.

Yep. The Earth's slingshot effect brought down to a human scale.
The Scientific Establishment didn't accept it for a long time.
The cognitive dissonance was just too great.