Tap for spoiler

The bowling ball isn’t falling to the earth faster. The higher perceived acceleration is due to the earth falling toward the bowling ball.

  • barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It’s not nonsense when it makes people understand, buddy. And don’t get all “oh be technical” on me when you say things like “earth will move with <something with the same units as G>”. Something that’s definitely something, but not m/s.

    inertial frame

    I was talking about time-steps when I said frame. Hence “simulation”, and “one frame, then another, then another”, referencing successive moments in time.

    • red
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      yet another brain rot reply, man i am done,

      ““earth will move with <something with the same units as G>”. Something that’s definitely something, but not m/s” you idiot i was talking about accelwration, if you need units just put in dementions of all the variables, thats trivial stuff you dont understand nlm at all.

      second para is another non technical nonesense

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        you idiot i was talking about accelwration,

        Then why did you say “move” instead of “accelerate”. And the units don’t match acceleration, either. Best I can tell it’s some fraction of a term. If you want it to be an acceleration then you’re missing a squared distance, and if you want it to be acceleration, why are both mass terms in there.

        For someone who throws around things like “that’s non-technical brainrot” damn is your prose fuzzy.

        • red
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          tell me how Gm/r^2 dosent match acceleration, the fact that i wasted my time on low iq person like you

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            That’s not what you wrote, or at least not what I complained about. You wrote:

            BUT earth will move with gM/m1

            where it was previously established that m1 and M are masses, and I interpreted g to be G (Newton’s gravitational constant) instead of g as in “gravitational acceleration caused by earth” because… well, I’m not actually sure. The whole thing is already a mess of capitalisation but more importantly then it’d be acceleration, not movement, worse, the specific properties of the earth are included twice (once in g, then in one of the mass terms).

            the fact that i wasted my time on low iq person like you

            Maybe you should spend less time on insulting people and more on communicating your thoughts clearly.

            • red
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              deleted by creator

            • red
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              deleted by creator

            • red
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              tell me how gM/m1 is not acceleration, what even is your point omg

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                You said it was movement, aka change in position over time, not acceleration, or you would have said “x will accelerate at”, not “earth will move at”. I already explained why it’s questionable as a term of acceleration.

                And this could’ve been over after a single comment of you saying “oh, yeah, misspoke”. Your math in the comment after that misbegotten term checks out, that’s not the issue here, it’s your presentation that went all haywire.

                • red
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  literally trivil matter, i didnt even say movement, the point is your statements were still brain rot nonesense and your original comment is wrong and you dont really understand stuff

                  • barsoap@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Clarity of presentation is never a trivial matter. You can be right all you like if you don’t get it across then it will be for nought but inflating your own ego.