this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
361 points (86.6% liked)

memes

10345 readers
2730 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LouNeko 7 points 4 hours ago

Those men are just very good friends.

[–] [email protected] 65 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (3 children)

I know this is a joke but if anyone is wondering it's because they build those things to go towards the air, otherwise they would be going away from the air and it would be hard to breath. Earth is going away from the air too but luckily it has trees attached to itself that make more air and leave it behind, that's where wind comes from.

[–] cordlesslamp6891 12 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Who are you, who are you so wise in the ways of science?

[–] Mr_Dr_Oink 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Therefore... by the process of elimination, we can tell the Earth is banana shaped.

[–] Tyfud 19 points 11 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 hours ago

Calvin's Dad over here.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 hours ago
[–] mlg 27 points 11 hours ago

I'm appalled at the amount of people in this comments section who failed elementary grade school level of physics and also somehow failed to notice this is the shitpost community

[–] [email protected] 98 points 20 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Harvey656 8 points 9 hours ago

Yes, now out with your deeply ingrained racist ideologies or I'm gonna sic gran on you.

[–] GladiusB 2 points 9 hours ago
[–] whotookkarl 17 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

If you want to just pick the fastest velocity we can measure and we're currently moving at thanks to dark energy the Milky Way galaxy is moving away from other distant galaxies faster than the speed of light.

[–] Agent641 4 points 7 hours ago

I think I feel it

[–] [email protected] 66 points 20 hours ago (6 children)

1675 + 10km/h

1675 + 100km/h

1675km/h

Turns out that 1675km/h is the magic number, anything above that is dangerous

[–] [email protected] 34 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

I'm a leading scientist on speed, and this is the answer.

[–] tdawg 24 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

They let scientists do drugs?

[–] RestrictedAccount 10 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Who do you think invents the drugs?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Can confirm. Heisenberg invented meth, saw a documentary about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] RizzRustbolt 37 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Idreamofcheesy 43 points 18 hours ago (8 children)

Not quite. When you're rotating, you are constantly accelerating in a tangent direction to the diameter. So the poster is right that we should be feeling a force shooting us away from the center of earth.

Except the force of gravity cancels out the centripetal force and then some.

So [force of gravity] - [centripetal force of Earth's rotation] = 9.8m/s^2

[–] kerrigan778 2 points 7 hours ago

Only on the equator, the force is just tiny, it produces major weather systems through the coriolis effect but only on giant scales. This would be like saying people get dizzy if they stand near the pole.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago

The actual amount of centrifugal force is also tiny. Sure, it's a relatively fast linear speed compared to something like a merry-go-round, but a merry-go-round's angular velocity is much higher, and that's the one you use when calculating the force trying to fling you off.

Also, centripetal force is the inward force observed by an external non-rotating reference frame which deflects motion into a curve. You've conflated it with centrifugal force, which is the outward "fictitious" force experienced in a rotating reference frame.

[–] cynar 21 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

The difference is about 0.5%. A mass weighing 100kg at the north pole would only weigh 99.5kg at the equator. Most of the difference is the centerfugal force of the earth's rotation.

I've not checked the numbers, but apparently it's detectable in Olympic sports. More height records get broken at equatorial latitudes that higher ones.

[–] wanderer 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

A mass weighing 100kg at the north pole would only weigh 99.5kg at the equator

That assumes a perfectly spherical earth. The earth is not perfectly spherical.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

This. Planets are in hydrostatic equilibrium, meaning that the combined acceleration by gravity and the centrifugal "force" is equal all over the world (except for local differences due to mountains and dense crust).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Hydrostatic equilibrium yes, but equal? No. We agree that centrifugal force is a factor. Now ask yourself, why would gravity suddenly strengthen at the equator to get the surface acceleration to stay equal to that of the poles?

It doesn't. As a result the Earth seeks a new hydrostatic equilibrium, bulging out at the equator. This in turn strengthens the centrifugal force a bit while also slightly diminishing the force of gravity (because more of the planet's mass is farther away). So the same effect is taken even further. Local differences add a layer of noise on top of this, but the end result is that the net surface acceleration is measured to average slightly less at equatorial regions than at the poles, with for example Singapore getting 9.7639 m/s2 of downward acceleration, while Helsinki gets 9.825 m/s2.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] taiyang 17 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Man, it'd be so funny if the entire atmosphere just straight up locked in place. Heck, forget rotation, have it keep it's X/Y/Z in the universe static and just straight up disappear as our solar system moves on.

[–] humorlessrepost 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] taiyang 1 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

The center of the universe, I suppose. How fast is the Milky Way moving away from the center? I imagine quite fast.

[–] humorlessrepost 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

There is no center, and there’s no fixed grid. It’s still funny to think of the atmosphere stopping from the sun’s reference frame, though.

[–] taiyang 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Well at the very least, we're supposedly moving 2.1million km per hour along with the Milky Way, and 720,000 km per hour within the Milky Way (so it could be more or less if that's with Milkys movement or not), plus our own movement around our sun, so ... basically really fast.

My point is, having anything just freeze like a glitch would probably cause something terrible. Granted even relative to the sun is probably catastrophic so it's kind of a moot point, haha.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago

There is no "center of the universe" as far as we're aware I'm pretty confident. We (each individual) is the center of their known/knowable universe, but that's distinct from the actual universe. There's stuff beyond that that we can and will never observe.

I guess you could define the center of the universe as the average point of all matter, but since we can't observe much of the universe we can't know where that is.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Xkcd kinda did a video on it except the earth is the one that stopped. It's pretty much exactly the same result though

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5G1QG6cXc

[–] Wogi 3 points 11 hours ago

It's exactly the same result! Because it's the same scenario from different perspectives.

[–] Unknown1234_5 7 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Ik this is a joke but if anyone is wondering it's because units of linear motion (km/h, mph, etc.) do not accurately describe rotation. Rotational units like rpm are much better as linear units give a misleadingly large (though technically correct) number.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

If anyone is wondering it's actually because of frame of reference. The first two images have speeds in relation to the rotation of earth, the last imagine uses a different frame of reference. If you put the last image in the same frame of reference as the first two images the number there would be 0km/h, because it would be moving in relation to itself.

[–] mkwt 6 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

It's actually because the thing that makes you make those faces is the acceleration, not the speed.

All three reference frames shown are accelerated, non inertial frames. But the first two have "fictitious" centrifugal accelerations somewhere around 0.5-2.5 g. The third frame has a detectable centrifugal acceleration, but it's like 0.003 g or something, and can be lumped in with gravity for many types of problems.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 13 hours ago

It's actually because of wind resistance, the air is moving the same speed as the ground when the earth turns so you don't feel it.

(don't @ me I'm just following what I recognized to be a humorous pattern of technically correct "well actually"s)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 17 hours ago

CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!!!

load more comments
view more: next ›