Billvon commented regarding this topic on some other thread:
That is correct if the amount of resistance is same,this conclusion was only made by considering no resistance or same resistance and a straight vertical process rather than circular.
That also depends on the resistance variation.
If there is no resistance upwards and some resistance downwards,then the amount of gravitational energy used to come downward has to be more than energy consumed to come down in absence of resistance.
A ball receives energy to come down from gravity.
Now,if a ball has to push something downwards to come downwards,it's a Commonsense that the ball will need more gravitational energy.
Basically you are violating law of energy conservation by claiming that energy needed to let heavy ball come downward in presence of no resistance=energy needed to let heavy ball come downwards in presence of resistance.
And for just revision,I also stated that in order to decrease the resistnce or eliminating resistance in upward motion which was available in downward motion,I am using a circular path rather than vertical.
Also you are thus disagreeing that gravity is continuous.You are also disagreeing the machenism of failure of a beam on application of weight.
Oh,that's it???Common sense tells one that if you get energy from dropping something it will not be greater than the energy used to lift it.
That is correct if the amount of resistance is same,this conclusion was only made by considering no resistance or same resistance and a straight vertical process rather than circular.
That also depends on the resistance variation.
If there is no resistance upwards and some resistance downwards,then the amount of gravitational energy used to come downward has to be more than energy consumed to come down in absence of resistance.
A ball receives energy to come down from gravity.
Now,if a ball has to push something downwards to come downwards,it's a Commonsense that the ball will need more gravitational energy.
Basically you are violating law of energy conservation by claiming that energy needed to let heavy ball come downward in presence of no resistance=energy needed to let heavy ball come downwards in presence of resistance.
And for just revision,I also stated that in order to decrease the resistnce or eliminating resistance in upward motion which was available in downward motion,I am using a circular path rather than vertical.
Also you are thus disagreeing that gravity is continuous.You are also disagreeing the machenism of failure of a beam on application of weight.
Last edited: