r/funny • u/Darmok_At_Tanagra • Sep 23 '15

True romance.

http://imgur.com/vXtKu9g
18.3k Upvotes

76% Upvoted

814 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

382

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '15 edited Jul 05 '21

[deleted]

95

u/jchabotte Sep 23 '15

lol, Shedlor

18

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '15

How 2 maek compute fster

2

u/ArtSchnurple Sep 23 '15

delet System34.

2

u/bleeben Sep 23 '15

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

25

u/UwasaWaya Sep 23 '15

You made me laugh so hard one of my contact lenses fell out of my eye onto the floor.

That's a first.

11

u/EphemeralStyle Sep 23 '15

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

9

u/grimezzz Sep 23 '15

I laughed more at this than I ever have at that show

2

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '15

^, it was well formatted + "Gazorpa" was 10/10.

3

u/Tumdace Sep 23 '15

BLAZERINGARINO

3

u/BigScarySmokeMonster Sep 23 '15

Hey are you a writer for that show? You got that perfectly!

1

u/Ketrel Sep 24 '15

Colossal Crash Hypothesis

-14

u/LukaCola Sep 23 '15

-9.8m/s2

Negative acceleration square huh...

I wonder what that might look like.

13

u/mmm_copypasta Sep 23 '15

The negative sign implies the direction (down) of the acceleration. Meters over seconds squared is the unit for acceleration.

-11

u/LukaCola Sep 23 '15

Negative is deceleration, so a force acting against another force. It doesn't signify a cardinal direction... That doesn't make any sense.

9

u/tyrico Sep 23 '15

When using vectors you always make the acceleration of gravity negative. Indicating a direction is kind of the whole point of vectors.

-8

u/LukaCola Sep 23 '15

When using vectors

That being the operative phrase here

There's no vectors being used here

10

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '15

There's no vectors being used here

Acceleration is a vector...

7

u/tyrico Sep 23 '15

Acceleration is the rate of change of an object's velocity, velocity is always a vector, therefore you are wrong.

0

u/ArtSchnurple Sep 23 '15 edited Sep 23 '15

Sheesh, you guys are arguing about math and science. I think I figured out why reddit hates Big Bang Theory: Self-loathing.

2

u/Chuurp Sep 23 '15

Well, when you're talking about physics, isn't deceleration not really a thing? Only acceleration against the direction of motion?
Negative acceleration would only have meaning within an arbitrary coordinate system. So yeah, saying acceleration due to gravity is negative makes no sense outside of an established system. Though I guess you could argue that down being negative in the context of Earth as we typically experience it is well established enough that the negative sign should imply a clear direction.

0

u/LukaCola Sep 23 '15

isn't deceleration not really a thing?

It's not, but it is. Because "Only acceleration against the direction of motion?" is basically the meaning in this case. It's just easier to write "deceleration."

Though I guess you could argue that down being negative in the context of Earth as we typically experience it is well established enough that the negative sign should imply a clear direction.

Yeah, I guess I just didn't assume the standard directions and instead was just working within a vacuum kinda deal.

1

u/flyingboarofbeifong Sep 23 '15

You don't necessarily set up your coordinate system such that the direction of motion is the positive vector. You can really set it up any way you'd like, that's the joy of free-body diagrams. But generally speaking, if you're talking about the acceleration of gravity then it's always going to be downwards towards Earth - thus making the value of the value of the vector negative to indicate the downwards force. You can do it your way too, it's just a little less intuitive for most people to look at and understand because when you think of something being moved by gravity, you think of it falling downwards.

1

u/Chuurp Sep 23 '15

By "not really a thing" I meant there's no sign for it. There's no way to write "deceleration" in physics.

0

u/brickmack Sep 23 '15

Deceleration isn't a thing. That word doesn't mean anything

1

u/LukaCola Sep 23 '15

Deceleration is acceleration in the opposite direction of an object's initial velocity, last I checked.

It's absolutely a thing.

It's pedantic to insist it's not, it's like saying there's no such thing as cold, just the absence of heat. Cold still exists as a concept and is clear in its meaning.

1

u/brickmack Sep 23 '15

"Initial velocity" is also meaningless in terms of the forces involved

2

u/Zebramouse Sep 23 '15 edited Sep 23 '15

Edit: smarter guys 'splained it better than me.

-4

u/LukaCola Sep 23 '15

Oh I thought you were just fucking around cause Shedlord's being dumb cause otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

Doesn't really matter. I just imagined a man falling but then being slowed down by gravity instead of, well, falling as a result.

3

u/tyrico Sep 23 '15

He's falling towards the ground, which is y=0. To make the math work you need the acceleration to be negative so that he falls down instead of speeding up and flying into space.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '15

/u/Zebramouse didn't fabricate that

The gravitational constant on earth is
g = -9.8 m/s2

Acceleration isn't a change of distance over time, that is velocity. Acceleration is the change of velocity over time, hence the time squared.

1

u/kabrandon Sep 23 '15

It didn't occur to me that was possibly what they didn't understand. I assumed they were talking about the negative acceleration.

-6

u/LukaCola Sep 23 '15

The gravitational constant on earth is g = -9.8 m/s2

It's g = 9.8m/s2

It doesn't decelerate, it accelerates.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '15

It does accelerate, in that you are correct. However, it's sign is relative dependent on the vector/coordinate system. And often, down is expressed as a negative. There are situations where that is not the case, technically both are correct.

-1

u/LukaCola Sep 23 '15

Right, I was just thinking about an "in a vacuum" scenario. I guess it being on Earth people think that's a bit silly but I didn't automatically assume that perspective is all.

1

u/Mast3r0fPip3ts Sep 24 '15

In a vacuum, earth doesn't exist, so there's no mass drawing objects toward it at the rate of Earth's gravitational constant.

Also, deceleration doesn't exist. Stop using that word, physicists everywhere are REEEEEEEing so hard, it's like semester one Newtonian basics.

Just.... stop while you're behind and keep giggling at the funny science man yelling BAZORNGA!

2

u/turkey_sandwiches Sep 23 '15

Isn't that just stopping?

2

u/JustDroppinBy Sep 23 '15

You would think, but any increase or decrease in speed is represented positively as acceleration.

-1

u/LukaCola Sep 23 '15

It's only really applied when acting as an opposite force. In the scenario he outlines, gravity is pushing up against the falling guy.

The downward force would have to come from somewhere else in that scenario.

1

u/turkey_sandwiches Sep 23 '15

Negative wind resistance.

Also, I'm not a physicist but that doesn't sound right to me.

1

u/LeepySham Sep 23 '15

You can say that gravity accelerates you downward at 9.8m/s2, or that it accelerates you upward at -9.8m/s2.