Umm, I don't believe there is any water in these funnel wishing wells. A wishing well is something you throw money into when you make a wish, maybe it has water, maybe it hasn't.
The funnel wishing wells into which you roll coins would not have water in the funnel because that would slow down the coins and ruin the show.
You're right, my apologies. I didn't watch the video, I assumed it was some kind of whirlpool.
See? You dismissed my argument without even watching the video, and as a result, gave an absolutely absurd and useless reply. "The water, he says." Another perfect case in point why you're a low quality information source.
(as mentioned it isn't really an orbit at all because of the constantly diminishing radius)
Do you really believe that? Are you not aware of the fact that the constantly diminishing radius is *only* because of the loss of energy?
Do you really believe that the radius would continue to shrink if there was no loss of energy?
Watch this video and you can see that when energy is added, the radius increases. It stands to reason that with no loss in energy, the radius would not change.
You're seriously confused if you think there's no loss of energy in these examples.
This still is not an example of an orbit due to an inverse square field
As best as I can tell, it's a matter of simple math to see that the outward force experienced by the coin is equal to g/x^2 -- which is square inverse.
But if you think I'm wrong about that, then please show me.
The fact that you see this as analogous to Newtonian orbits kind of destroys any credibility you might have had.
Well I think the cows are still out on that one.
Check out this paper: it turns out I'm not the first one to see this analogue:
https://www.spiralwishingwells.com/guide/Gravity_Wells_Mirenberg.pdfIf it turns out that the angle of the surface is such that it produces on the coin a force equal to (or very close to) g/x^2, then I'm quite right to see this as analogous to Newtonian orbits.
But I'm so glad you pointed this out because if it turns out that the force on the coin is analogous Newtonion orbits, then we will know you never had the credibility you thought.
As for the rest of your post, you have a lot of reading up to do on math and physics before we can continue this conversation,
We both might, my friend. You're digging yourself in deeper every post you make.
your ignorance is kind of astounding.
Again, thank you for saying that. Sometimes I wonder about it myself. But I think you and I make good company in that regard in this instance.
I cannot believe you're not acknowledging that the coin's radius is reducing because of loss of energy.
Totally astounding.
I suggest enrolling in a community college and taking some introductory calculus and physics classes
Wouldn't I need a HS diploma or a GED to do that? I haven't got either of those.
because I don't have time to provide you an education.
I constantly wonder why you're always whining about your lack of time. Did anybody make you read my post? Did anyone make you respond to my thread? Nobody.
What you do with your time is entirely your choice. Unless you're a paid actor hired to come here and support flat earth, which, come to think of it, would explain why you make so many embarrassingly obvious blunders and yet you're so persistent.
Why go on complaining to others about the choices you make for yourself?
You also come across as a passive aggressive tool, so I think I'll bid you a fond adieu.
It's so nice of you to introduce yourself. I feel like I already know you.
It sure looks to me like Newtonian orbits can work, and that the vortex funnel is a fine way to demonstrate it.
Recent Posts
