>>11955925Reasoning about it, i wondered, since the center of gravity, ground contact point, and glass contact point are all in a line, does some angle change in the glass impart a greater than angle change in the button? Looking at the video more closely, it does not, and simplifying things a bit like you did suggests likewise, so there is no phenomenon.
If the button were more oval-like and the ground more flexible, then we might see another phenomenon as the button becomes tilted at a second angle whence what you said presumably comes into effect.
Looking at the original video, I want more frames, but it maybe the same phenomenon, muted when the button is on the ground, suddenly appears more pronounced, which is to say the button glides along the lip instead of being rotated so much (the coefficient of static friction is greater so that didn't make sense, but your video shows otherwise!).
As an aside, this made me think about the ponderomitive force.
As another aside, the ”~" sign, proportionsl-to, should actually be some magical symbol meaning "proportionsl to without any magic coefficients" which is to say we observe and predict the angle change in the glass to be precisely imparted to the button.
However, it would be more fun to assign some funny ontological notions to the problem and make a computer calculate different cases:
- the button-"floor" contact surface is an open 2-manifold. This determines where the "cp1" is relative to the "cg".
- the button is a perfectly rigid circular cylinder.
- "cp2" is also an open 2-manifold.
If you turn the button into a cam, then I wonder what would happen.
I also realize I forgot things I shouldn't have so sorry OP I cannot calculate the orbit of your original video today or tomorrow i just realized I have some acquired retardation i need to take care of.
This makes me somehow think of how one might represent gravity without spacetime. Hrm.
