Hi Ian - You're dead right in your final summary. Your experiment proposal sounds great. (Unless you've already done it and I've somehow missed it) I was a bit confused for a second when I read John's comments mentioning Dispar's repeat of "my" experiment (which is actually Goofy's experiment idea - the one that was supposed to settle matters "once and for all" except he disowned it once he realised it actually proved him wrong - once and for all lol)... ... My momentary confusion was caused by me forgetting these are very different experiments - The ball launch one me and Dispar did simply involved halving the mass but using the same energy input - the rubber band - so the half mass DIDN;T go 2 x velocity as Goofy claimed it must do because he's a total experiment denying pr!ck with no b^lls. So it only went 1.4 x further and faster. ...Whereas your experiments discussed here specifically make the ball go 2 x faster, so then it goes 4 x further, keeping the same mass (correct me if I'm wrong). So I find it confusing comparing the two experiments even though they have similarities appearance wise. Anyway it's all good - Time and again you're all proving you can't cheat nature to make it come out the way Goofy predicts, unless you really did go to some extreme lengths to employ camera trickery or whatever - and who has any interest in doing that? No-one. If we're all wrong, then Goofy needs to do these experiments to the same or even better standard (unlikely) and SHOW us - I would actually make the effort to watch him if he did so. But all he and Toady ever do is the very worst experiments with bendy plastic rulers and suchlike then call that good science lol. The pair should get married and l!ck each other's .... for real. Has that pretentitious t0ss p0t been showing up at all lately? Have a good day Ian and everyone except Goofy and Toady.
I think this hypothesis is wrong. The 2x velocity ball will go 2x the distance. If the horizontal velocity is constant, then twice the speed is twice the distance *by definition*.
When the ball bearings bounce off the last part of the ramp under an angle of forty five degrees, then the ball with twice the velocity will travel eight times the distance. 😂
AFTERTHOUGHT, IAN... In your experiment proposal, I have only one concern - although I'm not 100% sure yet... My concern is that unless the ramp launching the ball is made curved, it might end up not being launched horizontally, but instead be "fired" towards the ground at an angle. But I imagine you'd take that into consideration anyway - I'm just thinking aloud mate.
Thanks Mate for your posts much appreciated, iam, currently facing the possibility I've got 8t wrong and they do not go 4x distance, Oops you no who will be eating out on it for the next 5 years!
@@Ian.Gostling Well at least you hold your hands up when you make a mistake - I think that's an important lesson Goofy should practice more. I TOO will hold my hands up and admit I'm scratching my head a little because I just did a quick test with a hastily put together curve ramp like a scalectrix but a bit more solid, in case energy got absorbed by the ball making the ramp bend down and back up - so I straped four pieces of hardboard together but it was still a bit bendy - not rock solid like Michael's solid wooden curved ramp - I don;t have time to contruct a proper one just now - ... and the ball went just over double the distance when launched from 4 x the height. In fairness, I wasn;t being meticulous with the ball placement, just judging by eye off a metal ruler, from 50cm and 12.5 cm. I'm scratching myhead a bit because on the one hand... Goofy expected just halving the ball's mass would be enough to make it go 2 x Velocity so 2 x the distance SO WE ALL AGREED THAT 2 X VELOCITY WOULD MAKE IT GO 2 X DISTANCE BACK THEN - WE ONLY ARGUED THAT HALVING THE MASS WOULDN;T MAKE IT GO 2 X FASTER - AND WE PROVED IT ONLY WENT 1.4 X FASTER. SO FAR SO GOOD. Now this experiment I've just done very quickly seems to prove that we were all correct in thinking that 2 x velocity really would make it go 2 x distance. But my point of confusion I guess is thinking about a car going twice velocity taking 4 x the stopping distance. I'm sure I will be kicking myself for not immediately spotting the diference between these two scenario's - it will dawn on me shortly, I;m sure, but I am kinda distracted by my other important actvities lately so aren;t gonna worry about it too much for now. Let me know if you have any further thoughts.
@@stephenbrough8132 I suppose Steve that at 2x V an object does have 4x the energy, thus taking 4 x stopping distance. But frictionless flying through air it looses no energy but it would do 4 x the damage if stopped mid flight.
When the ball rolls along the track though, the friction will be consuming the energy 'per meter' and therefore twice the velocity will travel four times the distance, because E = ½mv², like was shown in the video.
@@Ian.Gostling Like with wings you mean? Like a glider would? No, I'm only kidding, but they are both launched horizontally from the same height, so they both fall towards the surface in the same time. And since one of them is going with twice the velocity, we can use the equation s = vt to calculate the distance traveled. s2 / s1 = (v2 × t2) / (v1 × t1) and: t2 / t1 = 1 therefore: s2 / s1 = v2 / v1 If v2 = 2 × v1 then *s2 = 2 × s1*
@@Ian.GostlingHi there Ian. Remember that when the balls leave the end of the ramp at there respective velocities, 1v and 2v they are both going to fall from the same height in the same amount of time. Resulting in the 2v ball roughly landing at twice the distance of the 1 velocity ball. Stephen and Dispar showed something similar, launching of a ledge, when Goofy claimed halving the mass alone with the same energy launcher would result in twice the velocity, which it does not, roughly goes 1.414 the velocity and 1.414 the distance.👍😊
