Statistical approximations are a large part of complex systems, such as the summation of billions of forces of atoms.
Id argue given the insane ammount of moving parts, a simplication as easy to understand as Newtonian mechanics is extremely accurate, at least compared to the limited input data
We’re talking here about the consideration of friction and air resistance…
Oh my I really overestimated your standpoint there, your argument is simply the existence of eletrostatic forces? Cause I can gaurentee the original comment takes that into consideration, under the term 'forces' - highschool or not such is true until the limits of Newtonian mechanics.
Simplified, if something has no forces acting on it, it also has no electrostatic resistance (aka friction), and will follow newtons 2nd law - remain at rest or in motion, as the original comment stated.
I thought you were debating why the comment didnt take quantum effects into consideration lol
Oh my, the level to which nitpickers will go… my point is that the “false” statement from OC is in fact true for most people in their daily life. Try to ride a bike to understand what they experience.
It’s not even necessary to qualify that statement, unless you are discussing situations on earth vs situations in space. That’s why OC is false imo, because he takes a common understanding out of its context.
The statement is false in space travel and planet mechanics, which most people don’t do daily, and don’t need to consider, or if you look at it from the point of the physics book, which in this case conveniently ignores the situation most people are in most of their lifes: on earth where friction and air resistance are a reality.
My whole point is this context shift is willful misunderstanding.
Tbh Id argue the opposite on the nitpickyness, as on a bike you feel forces - kinda obviously. The space example only is used (although yes uncommon) because it has minimal forces.
Supprisingly enough if you have forces applying to you, you are an object under force (and such wont be going a constant speed - woah who knew), and so the original comment would not apply
Long story short quit trying to call them out to sound smart, you're just making an idiot out of yourself
Statistical approximations are a large part of complex systems, such as the summation of billions of forces of atoms.
Id argue given the insane ammount of moving parts, a simplication as easy to understand as Newtonian mechanics is extremely accurate, at least compared to the limited input data
We’re talking here about the consideration of friction and air resistance…
Oh my I really overestimated your standpoint there, your argument is simply the existence of eletrostatic forces? Cause I can gaurentee the original comment takes that into consideration, under the term 'forces' - highschool or not such is true until the limits of Newtonian mechanics.
Simplified, if something has no forces acting on it, it also has no electrostatic resistance (aka friction), and will follow newtons 2nd law - remain at rest or in motion, as the original comment stated.
I thought you were debating why the comment didnt take quantum effects into consideration lol
Oh my, the level to which nitpickers will go… my point is that the “false” statement from OC is in fact true for most people in their daily life. Try to ride a bike to understand what they experience.
It’s not even necessary to qualify that statement, unless you are discussing situations on earth vs situations in space. That’s why OC is false imo, because he takes a common understanding out of its context.
The statement is false in space travel and planet mechanics, which most people don’t do daily, and don’t need to consider, or if you look at it from the point of the physics book, which in this case conveniently ignores the situation most people are in most of their lifes: on earth where friction and air resistance are a reality.
My whole point is this context shift is willful misunderstanding.
Tbh Id argue the opposite on the nitpickyness, as on a bike you feel forces - kinda obviously. The space example only is used (although yes uncommon) because it has minimal forces.
Supprisingly enough if you have forces applying to you, you are an object under force (and such wont be going a constant speed - woah who knew), and so the original comment would not apply
Long story short quit trying to call them out to sound smart, you're just making an idiot out of yourself