pumpkinseedoil @ pumpkinseedoil @mander.xyz

Posts

0

Comments

266

Joined

1 yr. ago

He could've fled long ago if he wanted instead of facing the risk and staying. I respect him for that.

"It's either cold enough that I'm gonna die or it's not. Not sitting on the cold floor isn't going to save me in a situation where it would matter."

Until you remember that your body needs energy to heat your body, and needs less energy when you lose less, having more spare energy for other things like your immune system.

It does? Look at your arms when you're cold, you'll see all your tiny hairs are standing to help prevent the body from losing too much heat.

Funnily I also haven't heard much good about Scandinavian cuisine

Would've expected more from Germany though. On the other hand, they do eat Schnitzel mit Tunke...

Minecraft (incl. Wynncraft)

Absolutely not. Granted, my country is right next to Italy, but I've only ever heard about spaghetti with ketchup on the internet, from people from other countries.

More like that they probably are too young to have bought a home earlier. All people in their 20s (and I think we make a large percentage of Lemmy users) simply have to cope and buy some overpriced home regardless.

👍 in Europe earthquakes luckily are less of a concern, so we care more about longevity (you'll find many places where pretty much every house is well over a hundred years old (the oldest one in my village is about 900 years old)) and good isolation (to keep the heat inside in winter and outside in summer so we can heat less / don't have to use air conditioning on our way to net zero)

Hitler became the leader of a movement, but he wasn't the one to start it. After ww1's peace treaties a second war was basically unavoidable, even if national socialism wasn't a thing.

If you really want to change the tides of history you have to start earlier, prevent a movement when it's forming instead of killing its leader.

The acceleration relative to the earth is the same, relative to some point from another system the bowling ball accelerates very slightly slower but accelerates the earth very slightly more towards it. The total acceleration of these two bodies towards each other is g.

You said the two objects accelerate at the same rate, but then in the PS you said the feather gets accelerated faster. What do you mean?

Both accelerate at the same rate relative to the earth (the bowling ball accelerates slightly slower relative to some outside point, but it accelerates the earth slightly more towards it, resulting in the same relative acceleration to the earth as the feather)

Calculate the force between the earth and the bowling ball. It'll be G • (m(earth) • m(bowling ball)) / (r = distance between both mass centers)²

Simplify. You're getting g • m(bowling ball).

Now do the same for the feather. Again, the result is g • m(feather).

Both times you end up with an acceleration of g. If you want to put it that way: The force between the earth and the bowling ball is m(bowling ball)/m(feather) times as high as the force between the earth and the feather, but the second mass also is m(bowling ball)/m(feather) times as high, resulting in the same acceleration g.

Higher force on same mass results in stronger acceleration. Same force on higher mass results in lower acceleration. Higher force on equally higher mass results on equally high acceleration.

I just asked my professor this exact thing (if the ball would get to the earth sooner because it accelerates the earth towards it) like two weeks ago and my previous message + this message was his explanation.

PS: If you're looking at this from outside, the ball travels less distance before touching the ground (since the ground is slightly nearer due to pulling the earth more towards it), but also accelerates slower while accelerating the earth faster towards it. The feather gets accelerated faster towards the earth and travels a longer distance before touching the ground but doesn't accelerate the earth as fast towards it.

But because we're not outside, we only care about the total acceleration (of the earth towards the object and the object towards the earth), and that's g. We don't notice if (fictional numbers) the earth travels 1m and the object travels 1m or if the earth stays in place and the object travels 2m, what matters for us is how long it takes an object 2m away from the earth to be 0m away from the earth.

Why your spoiler is wrong:

The gravitational force between two objects is G(m1 m2)/r²

G = ~6.67 • 10^-11 Nm²/kg²

m1 = Mass of the earth = ~5.972 • 10^24 kg

m2 = Mass of the second object, I'll use M to refer to this from now on

r = ~6378 • 10^3 m

Fg = 6.67 • 10^-11 Nm²/kg² • 5.972 • 10²⁴ kg • M / (6378 • 10^3 m)² = ~9.81 • M N/kg = 9.81 • M m kg / s² / kg = 9.81 • M m/s² = g • M

Since this is the acceleration that works between both masses, it already includes the mass of an iron ball having a stronger gravitational field than that of a feather.

So yes, they are, in fact, taking the same time to fall.

Oh you're saying opposite site and adjacent site in English

Anyway how is the r=1 circle harmful for that?

Please elaborate.

Why?

Gorilla gorilla gorilla

To save you some time

But the timeline is:

1. Prevent worse
2. After that protest and show the democrats how much you disagree with their stance on that

Saving others some time:

Palestinians’ preference for Harris over Trump stems from the former US president’s policy towards Palestinian issues, such as recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in 2017 and moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem the following year. These actions were seen by Palestinians as undermining their aspirations for East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state and as a firm endorsement of Israeli sovereignty over the contested city.

In 2019, Trump recognized Israeli settlements in the West Bank as legal, in blatant defiance of international law, and halted US support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). This action was seen as tacit approval of Israel’s expansion into occupied Palestinian territories.

So you think Trump would be better than Harris? Because that's the only thing you get to vote on: Trump or Harris. A vote for neither is a vote for whoever has more votes - and we know that statistically republicans are less likely to vote third party (or not vote), so it most likely is a vote for Trump.