this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
106 points (96.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43993 readers
1157 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sethayy@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh my I really overestimated your standpoint there, your argument is simply the existence of eletrostatic forces? Cause I can gaurentee the original comment takes that into consideration, under the term 'forces' - highschool or not such is true until the limits of Newtonian mechanics.

Simplified, if something has no forces acting on it, it also has no electrostatic resistance (aka friction), and will follow newtons 2nd law - remain at rest or in motion, as the original comment stated.

I thought you were debating why the comment didnt take quantum effects into consideration lol

[–] redballooon@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh my, the level to which nitpickers will go… my point is that the “false” statement from OC is in fact true for most people in their daily life. Try to ride a bike to understand what they experience.

It’s not even necessary to qualify that statement, unless you are discussing situations on earth vs situations in space. That’s why OC is false imo, because he takes a common understanding out of its context.

The statement is false in space travel and planet mechanics, which most people don’t do daily, and don’t need to consider, or if you look at it from the point of the physics book, which in this case conveniently ignores the situation most people are in most of their lifes: on earth where friction and air resistance are a reality.

My whole point is this context shift is willful misunderstanding.

[–] Sethayy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Tbh Id argue the opposite on the nitpickyness, as on a bike you feel forces - kinda obviously. The space example only is used (although yes uncommon) because it has minimal forces.

Supprisingly enough if you have forces applying to you, you are an object under force (and such wont be going a constant speed - woah who knew), and so the original comment would not apply

Long story short quit trying to call them out to sound smart, you're just making an idiot out of yourself