Rank #5382 on CommentsLevel 162 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
OfflineSend mail to xxskoolxx Block xxskoolxx Invite xxskoolxx to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||8/10/2012|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#3612|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#5400|
|Content Thumbs:||273 total, 398 , 125|
|Comment Thumbs:||761 total, 976 , 215|
|Content Level Progress:|| 10% (1/10) |
Level 23 Content: Peasant → Level 24 Content: Peasant
|Comment Level Progress:|| 80% (8/10) |
Level 162 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 163 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
|Times Content Favorited:||8 times|
|Total Comments Made:||536|
- Views: 4141Then and Now
69 17 Total: +52
- Views: 4448I'll get right on that
45 11 Total: +34
- Views: 838My ass
12 2 Total: +10
- Views: 1122FJ REPRESENT
10 3 Total: +7
- Views: 945Tickle -Me-Elmo!
4 6 Total: -2
- Views: 355:-(
6 10 Total: -4
latest user's comments
|#15 - Every so often on amzon this Goes on sale for 20 bucks. [+] (1 new reply)||06/28/2016 on Someone asked for this, I'm...||+3|
|#926 - **xxskoolxx used "*roll picture*"** **xxskoolxx rolled image **||06/23/2016 on Admin's magic school bus||0|
|#27 - I don't play on Console, but I would imagine it is harder to l…||06/21/2016 on Behind Ya!||0|
|#19 - They are playing on the console, I take it you play on PC. [+] (3 new replies)||06/20/2016 on Behind Ya!||0|
|#75 - They are remaking 1-3 from the ground up(like ratceht and Clan…||06/20/2016 on one link||+2|
|#1087 - Well at least it's classy.||06/19/2016 on Roll for your hottie...||0|
|#1086 - **xxskoolxx used "*roll picture*"** **xxskoolxx rolled image ** [+] (1 new reply)||06/19/2016 on Roll for your hottie...||0|
|#41 - Still waiting for a new fantasy rts.||06/19/2016 on Warcraft 3 player dodges a...||0|
|#12 - Being a bachelor in physics you should know: no matter what co… [+] (12 new replies)||06/16/2016 on Water vs Centrifugal Force||+17|
#104 - joefakes (06/17/2016) [-]
Shit son, you never pay attention to Newtons laws? For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. If the cup is applying centripetal force on the water then the water must be applying centrifugal force on the cup. If one doesn't exist it is impossible for the other to exist.
#48 - anon (06/17/2016) [-]
If you take the "no matter what coordinate system" POV, then there's also no such thing as a gravitational force, as it's just a choice of coordinate system in general relativity. (one man's "weight pushing down on the scale" is another man's "scale accelerating up into the weight" - refer to the Einstein "elevator" thought experiment.)
#14 - notwalkingwaffles (06/16/2016) [-]
As a bachelor of physics I know that it is not so.
Although it is a direct consequence of our choice of coordinate system, there is no distinction between "it behaves as a force" and "it is a force". That's the reason that 4-momentum became a thing, so we could do mechanics in non-inertial frames (and thus do a lot of relativity calculations).
It's the equivalence principle all over again: There is no distinction between acceleration and gravitational force.
#71 - anon (06/17/2016) [-]
As a physics in bachelors, I know your qualification doesn't mean shit on the internet, so you can stop starting every sentence with "as a bachelor of physics."
#114 - notwalkingwaffles (06/17/2016) [-]
Look at the comment I responded to, now back to mine, now back to the one I responded to, see why I chose my words so?
Let me educate you as the pleb you are. His starts with "Being a bachelor in physics you should know" and mine with "As a bachelor of physics I know that it is not so," because he incites that the knowledge that he speaks truth should follow with the education, but in reality it is because of my education that I understand that it is not true.
Is this a difficult concept for you to understand?
#19 - anon (06/16/2016) [-]
It is a fictitious force, henceforth not a real force. It's only used to describe the motion of objects from a non-inertial reference frame that behave as if acted upon by a force. Use the ball in the spaceship example, where the ball rests in the middle of a spaceship without gravity. When the spaceship accelerates, the ball viewed from a reference frame of the ship seems to be accelerating towards the ship, even though this is not the case. In the frame of the ship, there is a fictitious force acting upon the ball, when in reality there is no actual force.
#108 - joefakes (06/17/2016) [-]
I'll remind you that we are on the surface of a rotating sphere, rotating around a star, rotating around a black hole, rotating in a galactic cluster, in an expanding universe. Inertial frames don't even really exist in classical physics because every body is interacting with every other body through gravity, so there are no acceleration free frames. I'll take centrifugal force as the 'real' thing over classical inertial frames.
#22 - notwalkingwaffles (06/16/2016) [-]
>even though this is not the case
The equivalence principle mofugga. The main idea behind general relativity is that the study of accelerating frames is in every way identical to the study of gravitation.
You claim that though it appears that the ball is accelerating towards the ship, in reality the ship is accelerating towards the ball. You know the idea that if you move with a constant speed away from somebody, it's equivalently correct to claim that you are standing still and the other guy is moving?
It's the same with acceleration.
Objective motion - or rather objective standstill, does simply not exist. Not one system is truer than the other. "In reality" as it builds on the assumption that there exists objective motion, and that A accelerating towards B, and B accelerating towards A are not equivalent statements, which is simply false.
#26 - anon (06/16/2016) [-]
Then tell me, what is applying the force to the ball?
#38 - anon (06/16/2016) [-]
But now you're getting back into relativity, no? From the perspective of classical physics, isn't other anon/xxskoolxx correct?
#42 - notwalkingwaffles (06/17/2016) [-]
Well, no, not really. A force is still there in this system, in the same manner that the Coriolis force is a thing, which is also a thing arising from being in a rotating coordinate system, as things in an accelerated rest frame do not move in straight lines when they're not acted by what would be a force in an inertial system.
It's in a course for advanced mechanics though, but it still holds that F=m*a in these systems. It's still classical mechanics, but more complicated.
It is, however, as you say a "fictious force", as it arises solely from our accelerated system, but do not mistake "fictious" for "not real" as I did earlier in the discussion, it means "stemming from not being in an inertial system".
I recommend you check out the wiki page for it, it's a nice read. It also states that "In terms of an inertial frame of reference, centrifugal force does not exist." which is true, it is not there in inertial frames, but change your coordinate system and it appears, which doesn't make it any less real than any other force.
In the end, I'll remind you that in this accelerated frame where the centrifugal force exists, there is no centripetal force - it too is a consequence of our choice of system.
Inertial frames and their consequences aren't more real than non-inertial frames, they're just usually simpler to work with.
|#74 - Idk I thought AoA was better than CW||06/16/2016 on One of the best scenes from...||0|