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.

  • red@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    all that is only brain-rot statements with no technical meaning. lemme make this completly clear

    mf= mass of feather mb= mass of ball me= mass of earth ae=accelaration of earth fg=force experienced by both

    now in case of feather

    force on earth is what? yes thats fg =G.mf.me/r^2

    now thats the net force on earth, now what is newtons law? me.ae=G.mf.me/r^2

    we get ae=G.mf/r^2

    similarly in case of ball ae=G.mb/r^2

    and accelaration of earth is clearly more in case of ball, and yes this is accelaration in non inertial frame study newtons laws of motion again if you didnt know, so your second paragraph is utter nonsense

    instead of nonsense brainrot statements like 'Multiplication is associative, you can switch the masses around as you please, nowhere in the formula does it say “the greater mass” or “the smaller mass” you could just as well re-arrange the formula and come up with “earth moves with gm1/M” tell me where in equations you think i am wrong

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days 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@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 days 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 days 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@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days 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 days 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@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days 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
                  1 day 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@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day 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