Robittybob1

Have you tried it? So Y0 = (gap+r1+r2)? and y= r1+r2 and therefore (1-y/Y0) = gap? What is the arccos value going to be? It looks like you got the algebra right. Are we dealing with an angle?

I get EHS and what the OP describes sounds totally different.

What does better mean in regards to this experiment? Better at giving shocks??

I do it via a spreadsheet and vary one parameter at a time and I get the feeling what happens in different situations. So on the condition that the material has a consistent density you can select r1 and r2 and the spacing (gap) g therefore you can formulate the amount of force, and later divide by the mass based on the chosen radius and gap values to get accelerations.Starting from zero, acceleration determines speed and speed determines distance in time. So at this stage I'm just considering the effects on acceleration.

I think this is similar to what I found the first time, but when I gave the mass some physical dimensions and mass according to those dimensions I have become less certain of the outcome. I'll have to look at the calculations again to see where I was going astray.

The ones that are physical particles and also described as "point particles" of course. For instance mass acts from a point but the size of a particle determines how many you can fit into a certain space (excluding black holes where the dimensions of particles are physically changed).

Do we still look at the addition of both accelerations i.e. how 1 accelerates towards 2 and how 2 accelerates towards 1?

That would be right for an idealized particle but those particles are never that small that there are an infinite number of physical particles in a finite amount of space.

If they are made from the same stuff there is a relationship between mass and radius for all the objects so I'll try and give the small mass some nominal radius and compare the mass difference between the large and the small spheres.

It must be like holding the masses apart and then dropping them. You can't actually get two masses attracted to each other without them approaching each other prior to measurements being taken. Like they can be orbiting each other, in which case they won't be approaching each other. Or they were approaching each other from infinity? So one would wonder how the experiment could be run. OK maybe it could be done on the ISS. There might be a spot in the central space where it is gravitationally neutral. So we place in space two masses of equal mass and another two masses of unequal mass with the same distance apart (measurement of the separation, the "gap" not the centers of mass) on the ISS and see which pair touches first. What I was thinking was to look at the extreme of a very small mass that has no significant radius, so the distance apart for the purposes of gravitational attraction would be the radius of the larger mass and the distance apart (gap). The two larger masses would have a gravitational distance of two radius "r" plus gap "g". Newtonian gravitation force: F = GmM/(r^2) Force 1 = GmM/(r+g)^2 Force 2 = GMM/(2r+g)^2 It seems that if radius and gap were equal the acceleration of the smaller mass is greater than twice the acceleration of the two larger masses. When the gap is more than 1.5 radius then the two larger masses accelerate at a combined rate greater than the vastly different sized masses. That would mean if they were started off far apart the larger masses would contact first but if they were close to start off with the smaller mass would be first. So where they are separated by twice the radius (g=2*r), it would be close. I haven't figured that out yet. It would start off giving the advantage to the two larger masses and then as they got closer the advantage would change over to the disparate masses.

Has anyone got a method to check it out mathematically?

But lots of other seeds do pass through cattle. Little round seeds like the seeds of clover especially. Brassica seeds must as well for wild turnip seems to keep popping up.

That could be right. Just thinking about it if I fed pumpkins to the cows I don't get wild pumpkins growing the next year. But I seem to recollect that rats would bring the seeds back to their nest and that's where pumpkins grow too, in disused places away from grazing animals. I haven't grown watermelons but just think they are somewhat similar to a pumpkin.

When you eat a watermelon do you chew the seeds? Not many seeds would go undigested in my gut. Pumpkins etc just propagate from seeds left where others have rotted down. I know tomato seeds survive the digestive tract of humans but what evidence that is the case for watermelons?

Is that a guess or did you do the calculations? What is the ratio of the distances between their center of masses?

Do they survive the digestive tract? I noticed certain pasture species seed passed through the digestive tract of cattle, the same could be for water melon seed in humans.

They touch via their outside edges not their center of masses (COM). So since gravity acts from the COM A-B is closer than C-D, therefore the force/unit mass will be stronger between A-B than C-D. As A accelerates it will cover more distance/time than the larger masses

What is your background and the reason you have come up with the new paradigm?

Therefore why do you call it "a dome shape and the top is a point of unstable equilibrium", if the particle will remain there at R=0?

Well have a go at explaining the miracles in pure physics if you can.

Why would the inverted pendulum theory have anything to do with this topic? I have never heard of it.

You present a poor argument. You make a case but don't give us your evidence for the things you argue.

If the difference between the outside edges are the same (something you don't say) they will touch at different times the smaller one will get there first as the center of mass is closer in the situation with the smaller one.

I agree you can be at rest but any random influence can disturb that equilibrium. They seem to call that "spontaneous" maybe you need to argue whether random and spontaneous are synonymous? are random experimental errors influencing the outcome "spontaneous"?

That is true but it is a hard place to physically find that spot, but in theory it is a solution. You'd think Newton meant an unbalanced external force.