/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11077222
the ground is pushing you up

So if you are moving in the direction gravity is pushing you, then you are technically not moving, you are just moving from another's perspective. But in order to move in any other direction, you would be moving, including being globally stationary, you would locally be moving in the opposite direction of gravity with equal force.

>>11077229
So the ground is pushing you up but the ground is also pulling you down due to the gravity of the ground? And by pulling you down it isn't actually pulling you down, "down" doesn't exist from your local perspective because down is the 0 default angle.

>>11077237
you are only moving down to somebody that is not moving down, otherwise moving down is the default, why does this happen because of mass? what is mass that it pulls directions in this way?

You aren't moving down at all in fact, you aren't moving at all in fact when you are moving towards gravity. Are you people not smart enough to even answer my question? give me a break please.

So is english your 3rd or 4th language?

>>11077253
Imagine only speaking 4 language.. i spoke 7

>>11077253
The mass of the earth pulls you down per the laws of gravity. The atoms in your feet and the atoms on the surface of the ground repel each other due to electromagnetic forces. These forces sum to zero and the net effect is that you do not accelerate toward the center of mass of the earth.
Hope this answered your question because goddamn you suck at communicating.

>>11077222
you're mom

>>11077257
I'm trying to say that you are not moving neutral you are moving constantly upwards because gravity is the neutral direction.

That is, you are thinking about motion completely wrong, if you are falling otwards a black hole you aren't atually falling you aren't moving at all in fact, but if you are moving away from a black hole and it is pull you in at the same rate you move away from it then you are moving even thoug haccording to you it is "neutral" when in reality is not

>>11077263
>I'm trying to say that you are not moving neutral you are moving constantly upwards because gravity is the neutral direction
I dont know what any of this means.
>That is, you are thinking about motion completely wrong
Okay. You must know more physics than me, then.

>>11077264
Correct, I am more correct about physics than you is but do not be alamed or sad.

THink of it this way.

You have to define direction relative to something and gravity is the default direction so gravity is not moving.

>>11077266
Neat. You should go write a book, mr physcist.

>>11077270
I already have written books based on my adventures in Patmos it is one of the most famous books of all time. Although at the time the author may have been gay and died shortly after writing the book.

>>11077274
fucking lmao

>>11077279
well he (i) had a near death experience towards the end of the book too which helped him write the end and familiar numbers odd

>>11077222
>le 51% question

Look at the OP image guys, that and the utterly incoherent English should make it clear that this is a garbage shitpost thread. I don't think we have a Tooker 3.0 on our hands here, sadly.
Sage goes in all fields.

>>11077303

idiot

>>11077279
It's really a shame because I used to be able to get billions of people to acknowledge my work but in the past five years I've only been able to get 10+ million to acknowledge my work which is relatively high compared to the old days, I mean my book based on my adventures in Patmos didn't kick off until hundreds of years later which I had planned for any ways.

But now we have a bunch of coky asses everywhere who don't know shit about shat.

>>11077256
>i spoke 7
what happened?

>>11077222
>not moving
Nah, you are moving relative to something. You mean "free falling". Free meaning free of force. And in that case yes, that's correct. You only feel gravity acting on you because the ground keeps you from falling further, as others pointed out.

>>11077222
Well, what is motion? What is location? According to Einstein that's relative. And the ether is already disproven.

>>11077222
>dios mios

>>11077263
Yeah I've heard that theory before. But assuming the earth and other masses are expanding. Does that even make sense mathematically or physically?