this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
437 points (86.2% liked)

memes

10368 readers
1681 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (3 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] 21 points 1 day ago (2 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day 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.

[–] beastlykings 11 points 1 day 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)