You must log in or # to comment.
Try to be between her and the moon. Both your attractions will act in somewhat the same direction. Or at least F→moon • F→me > 0
How do you get LaTeX in the comment?
Edit: Wait that’s not LaTeX that’s just cleverly-placed Unicode and Markdown formatting
Correct, careful use of Unicode and Markdown. If it were LaTeX, the arrows would have been directly overhead those F’s
But if you are holding hands then r² becomes zero and the force of attraction is infinite.
If you’re holding hands tight enough that you can feel it at all, you’re already exerting more than 2 milliNewtons of force.
Take the center of mass at that point. Can’t be 0 because atoms have widths.
If clothing can have 00 sizes then so can anything.
Yup. As I said in another comment, you are not a point mass. The amount of your and her flesh that’s atom-width close is an astronomically small fraction of the total weight, no matter how close you cuddle, and this fraction gets squared because there are 2 bodies. (It’s an integral over two volumes – in layman’s terms, an atom in your hand feels strong (for an atom) attraction to an atom on her hand, but not her head even if your heads also touch.)
I know you realize this but for others: For atoms, point masses at the nuclei are a good simplification, but not for larger non-spherical objects unless they are really far away. The center of mass can be outside your body when you bend over and two people can therefore reduce the distance of their centers of masses to 0. However, this will not result in infinite attractive force (that could get Cirque de Soleil performers stuck bent over each other), similarly: pouring a liquid without adhesion or surface tension on a giant donut-shaped object in space would not result in it accumulating in a sphere in the center, the donut would get covered in it.
First assume that it is a spherical cow traveling through a vacuum…
Reading that was fun. Thanks.
Well we need to dive in quantum physics if we are going that deep, no?
Quantum gravity time! (Or each of you could be charged)
Is the Sun’s even stronger or did I fuck up something using my phone’s calculator? I got 0.35
An r of 1.3mm or less will make it so you are more attractive than the moon!
You are not a point mass. The amount of your and her flesh that’s this close is a miniscule fraction of the total weight, no matter how close you cuddle, and this fraction gets squared because there are 2 bodies. (It’s an integral over two volumes – in layman’s terms, an atom in your hand feels strong (for an atom) attraction to an atom on her hand, but not her head even if your heads also touch.)
I learned three things in physics:
- You can’t push a rope
B) Cows can be assumed to be spherical
III) Everything exists as a point mass. The Earth is a point mass, electrons are point masses, the aforementioned spherical cows are point masses…
Spherical objects can be simplified to point masses when calculating gravity. But the center of mass can be outside your body when you bend over and two people can therefore reduce the distance of their centers of masses to 0. However, this will not result in infinite attractive force (that could get Cirque de Soleil performers stuck bent over each other), similarly: pouring a liquid without adhesion or surface tension on a giant donut-shaped object in space would not result in it accumulating in a sphere in the center, the donut would get covered in it.
In other words, if you’re really deep inside her, her attraction to you will be stronger than to the moon.
Giggity 😏
You read nothing of this, did you? The fraction of the human body that’s 1 mm below the surface is small, and the fraction of the other body that’s 1 mm away from any single point is even smaller, and the two get multiplied for an insignificant fraction of the total mass. Come back when you understand what ∰ means, or at least read my other comment about people bent over to share a center of mass.
there’s an Avatar: The Last Airbender joke somewhere here, but i haven’t seen the show in some time and don’t remember what the joke is about
That’s rough buddy
r=2m, not 1m?
r = 50 m by court order, but m2 is also now 135 kg.
That’s Amore!
Don’t italicize units and constants.
they kinda are not. it is most likely typeset in latex, where in equation mode all letters by default get italicised. and it is kinda accpeted as appropriate typesetting.
Well, it’s not appropriate typesseting. Unlike unknowns and constants (𝑥, 𝑐), units need to be manually unitalicized. In DOCX, this also prevents wide kerning (which is OK for several multiplied constants/unknowns but not multi-letter units). I only use serif italics for liter (𝑙), and only outside equations (it’s not SI base anyway), because I think a simple “l” can be confused with “I” or “1” while the alternatives (L, ℓ) look terrible in typesetting.
well i have learnt something, thanks. i usually just unitalicise names (so here, that would be moon and me, but not N, kg, m). I have seen units italicised a lot (professor notes, even papers), so i assumed it was accepted. i have seen normal ones too, and bold also (that is usually for vector quantities i think).
Yup. The reason I unitalicise names is to stop the wide kerning. It’s moon and me, not 𝑚 𝑜 𝑜 𝑛 and 𝑚 𝑒.
In texts I’ve seen, bold variables are matrices.
well vectors and matrices are both tensors, so and iirc, while writing by hand, we use lines to denote dimesions (1 and 2 respectively), and we use bold while typing
