2mo ago

ur dada so buff he falls significantly faster than g

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

136 comments

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.
- tell me how Gm/r^2 dosent match acceleration, the fact that i wasted my time on low iq person like you
  
  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.
  
  tell me how gM/m1 is not acceleration, what even is your point omg
  
  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.
  
  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
  
  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.
  
  But you're not right?
  You've very clearly shown that you are wrong and then said "I'm right because I understand my explanation more than the reality of the situation"
  
  I understand and agree with red's math, and I said no such thing as you put into quotation marks there.
  
  Yeh tbh my bad Im a couple drinks in. All I know is that the guy who thinks the bowling ball doesn't technically fall faster is wrong (no idea if that's you or not) any doubters look at this equation (F = G(m1m2)/R2 ) for a couple minutes and come back to me.
  In solidarity with whoever thinks I'm wrong I'll downvote my own comments losers
  
  As to "what's falling faster" my point is still that everything's falling at the same speed, because the only non-arbitrary reference point to measure things from is the centre of gravity of the whole system, earth, feather, ball, all of them together.
  Well it may still be arbitrary, but at least it's not geocentric or feathercentric or ballcentric. All three can be unhappy with the choice which means it's fair.
  Flip that reference point to the earth though and yes the ball is approaching ever so slightly faster than the feather (side note: is our earth spherical or are we at least making it an oblong?). Flip it to the ball and the feather is falling a lot slower towards it than the earth is. Which is probably how I should have started explaining this: The mass difference between feather and earth with respect to the ball is so massive that it actually makes quite a difference while between feather and ball wrt. earth it's negligible.

136 comments