In the pursuit of attempting to understand gravity a bit better I came across this observation which I am sure has been observed and described before.

In another thread MacM described it as escape threshhold of an object leaving the earths gravity well.

See if you can see the paradox in the following scenario:

We have a magnet and a steel ball.
The ball is about 100 mm away from the magnet and takes 1 kilogram of effort to keep it still and not falling to the magnets attraction.
Now say we apply a curve to the level of attraction over distance. Showing the field strength diminishing as the distance from the magnet increases.

To move the ball away from the magnet a force greater than the 1 kg has to be applied. But we are actually trying to move it to a lesser strength of attraction.

so to move the ball to a lesser attraction stength position requires more effort.

we apply just 1.000000001kgm and our ball will move contantly away from our magnet at an accelerating velocity. to position the ball in a steady spot further away from the magnet the amount of energy applied must be less than the 1 kg. But to get it to move it has to be greater than the 1 kg.

In a way this explains the inertia or resistance to movement that objects have.

but the interesting thing is that it takes more energy to move the ball into a weaker field, but less energy to hold the ball still in that weaker field.

Care to discuss?

In the pursuit of attempting to understand gravity a bit better I came across this observation which I am sure has been observed and described before.

In another thread MacM described it as escape threshhold of an object leaving the earths gravity well.

See if you can see the paradox in the following scenario:

We have a magnet and a steel ball.
The ball is about 100 mm away from the magnet and takes 1 kilogram of effort to keep it still and not falling to the magnets attraction.
Now say we apply a curve to the level of attraction over distance. Showing the field strength diminishing as the distance from the magnet increases.

To move the ball away from the magnet a force greater than the 1 kg has to be applied. But we are actually trying to move it to a lesser strength of attraction.

so to move the ball to a lesser attraction stength position requires more effort.

we apply just 1.000000001kgm and our ball will move contantly away from our magnet at an accelerating velocity. to position the ball in a steady spot further away from the magnet the amount of energy applied must be less than the 1 kg. But to get it to move it has to be greater than the 1 kg.

In a way this explains the inertia or resistance to movement that objects have.

but the interesting thing is that it takes more energy to move the ball into a weaker field, but less energy to hold the ball still in that weaker field.

Care to discuss?

I believe that in theory assuming everything was perfect, that the work performed moving the ball out of the magnetic field remains exactly equal to the potential energy the ball has while stationary anywhere in the field.

I believe that in theory assuming everything was perfect, that the work performed moving the ball out of the magnetic field remains exactly equal to the potential energy the ball has while stationary anywhere in the field.
Hi Macky, I was wondering when you would post a response, knowing of your intense interest in teh subject of gravity. :)

Let me see if I have gotten what you have said right?

If the ball is static in it's position being held by a force of 10kgs that this is equal to it's potential energy?

Or are you saying that the force greater than 10 kgs is it's potential energy.

The main thrust of this thread is that a static position of 10 kgs [ originally I used 1 kg as an example but now 10 kg is easier] can only be moved further away from the magnet to a weaker field by applyng a force greater than 10kgs.

Yet when moved even by a small dstance [away from the magnet] the amount to hold that position is now less than 10 kgs.

Are you saying that the potential energy is the static energy added to the extra applied energy?

Hi Macky, I was wondering when you would post a response, knowing of your intense interest in teh subject of gravity. :)

Let me see if I have gotten what you have said right?

If the ball is static in it's position being held by a force of 10kgs that this is equal to it's potential energy?

Or are you saying that the force greater than 10 kgs is it's potential energy.

The main thrust of this thread is that a static position of 10 kgs [ originally I used 1 kg as an example but now 10 kg is easier] can only be moved further away from the magnet to a weaker field by applyng a force greater than 10kgs.

Yet when moved even by a small dstance [away from the magnet] the amount to hold that position is now less than 10 kgs.

Are you saying that the potential energy is the static energy added to the extra applied energy?

I qualified my first answer by saying if everything is perfect. Your assumption that you must apply a force greater than the magnetic field strength pull seems valid. Any excess over and above the actual force would seem to be lost as an inefficiency in that the potential is going to only be the force (integrated) over the distance (Favg * D = Work or potential energy).

Any excess force you use in moving the mass away would not be recovered.

may be I can further describe this "paradox" by asking the question:

How many kgs of force is needed to move an object at rest with 10kgs force being constantly applied to a position that is at rest with only 9kgs of force needed to maintain stasis.

lets graph it a little:

20 mm = 10kgs
40 mm = 9kgs

to move from 20 mm the force has to be greater than 10kgs
but to maintain a position at 40mm the force has to be reduced from >10kg to (=)9kg.
During the movement from 20 to 40 mm the force always has to be greater than the staic force needed and needs to reduce as the distance increases or accelleration occurs but at all times the force must be greater than the static postion whether that be 20mm, 22mm, 35mm etc etc.

So we have a field force vs movement paradox.

What amount of force is the minimum needed to move the ball from 20 to 40 mm.

Do you see the paradox? [I am using the word paradox in a positive sense here]

of course the inverse is applicable in that to move and object from 40mm to 20mm means a reduction in effort to allow change in position stasis even though the final resting position requires more effort to maintain the new stasis.

may be I can further describe this "paradox" by asking the question:

How many kgs of force is needed to move an object at rest with 10kgs force being constantly applied to a position that is at rest with only 9kgs of force needed to maintain stasis.

lets graph it a little:

20 mm = 10kgs
40 mm = 9kgs

to move from 20 mm the force has to be greater than 10kgs
but to maintain a position at 40mm the force has to be reduced from >10kg to (=)9kg.
During the movement from 20 to 40 mm the force always has to be greater than the staic force needed and needs to reduce as the distance increases or accelleration occurs but at all times the force must be greater than the static postion whether that be 20mm, 22mm, 35mm etc etc.

So we have a field force vs movement paradox.

What amount of force is the minimum needed to move the ball from 20 to 40 mm.

Do you see the paradox? [I am using the word paradox in a positive sense here]

In theory the differential can be virtually nill but the time it would take to move would be long. The greater the amount of force above the static pull the faster one accelerates. It gets cmplicated however in that if you apply a lot grater force than the static pull then you generate more momentum which would tend to carry you past you static pull point.

I don't have the answer as to just how little excess force needs to be applied since we have no knowledge of what resistance if any are present. If none then the required force would be none+? based on the time you wanted to allow to make the move.

The delta force must accelerate the mass via F = ma. None + 0 would take an infinite amount of time. None + x would take an amount of time based on the value of x.

may be I can further describe this "paradox" by asking the question:

How many kgs of force is needed to move an object at rest with 10kgs force being constantly applied to a position that is at rest with only 9kgs of force needed to maintain stasis.

lets graph it a little:

20 mm = 10kgs
40 mm = 9kgs

to move from 20 mm the force has to be greater than 10kgs
but to maintain a position at 40mm the force has to be reduced from >10kg to (=)9kg.
During the movement from 20 to 40 mm the force always has to be greater than the staic force needed and needs to reduce as the distance increases or accelleration occurs but at all times the force must be greater than the static postion whether that be 20mm, 22mm, 35mm etc etc.

So we have a field force vs movement paradox.

What amount of force is the minimum needed to move the ball from 20 to 40 mm.

Do you see the paradox? [I am using the word paradox in a positive sense here]

In theory the differential can be virtually nill but the time it would take to move would be long. The greater the amount of force above the static pull the faster one accelerates. It gets cmplicated however in that if you apply a lot greater force than the static pull then you generate more momentum which would tend to carry you past your static pull point.

I don't have the answer as to just how little excess force needs to be applied since we have no knowledge of what resistance if any are present. If none then the required force would be none+? based on the time you wanted to allow to make the move.

The delta force must accelerate the mass via F = ma. None + 0 would take an infinite amount of time. None + x would take an amount of time based on the value of x.

so youwould agree that inthe formula [none + x] [x] coould be any value, infinitely small or large......hmmmmm.....

reminds me of PPM paradoxs.........