Comment on your mom falls significantly faster than g
barsoap@lemm.ee 1 day agoyou 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 1 day 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 1 day ago
That’s not what you wrote, and not what I complained about. You wrote:
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).
Maybe you should spend less time on insulting people and more on communicating your thoughts clearly.
red@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
tell me how gM/m1 is not acceleration
barsoap@lemm.ee 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 checks out, that’s not the issue here, it’s your presentation that went all haywire.