• 0x0
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Shouldn’t m = F/a so n/s^2?

    • mvirts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      E=mc^2 so m is joule seconds^2 / meter ^ 2

      F=ma so m is Newton seconds^2 / meter

      A joule is 1 Newton / meter so they agree

        • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          A J = Ns not N/s

          One Joule of energy is one Newton of force applied for 1 second.

          • zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Muphry’s law at work - for both of us, actually. I looked it up (since with Ns the units no longer worked out between E = mc² and F = ma), and a joule is actually a Nm, a Newton-meter. And with that the units do work out correctly on both equations.

            • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              That is really unintuative, torque is Nm…how can energy also be Nm.

              But then I look at it and J = Ws = N(m/s)s = Nm

              • theneverfox@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Because you can do kinematics two ways. You can look at it by speed*mass, or by energy - in both cases it quickly gets way more complicated when you move beyond spherical cows in a vacuum, but both are equally valid. There’s trade-offs to each approach, but the answer should end up the same

                Just like how you can say a rod from God or an asteroid impact is x kilotons of explosives, you’re looking at the energy being scattered on impact. If you set your reference frame to Earth, you only have to look at the relative speed and mass of the other object and you get a reasonable estimate. You could also factor in how much the earth moves from the impact, factor in how much the atmosphere, water, and soil “soften the blow”, you could theoretically look at how the movement of other celestial bodies gently tugs at both as they impact, the resistance of the materials moving through the earth’s (and sun’s) magnetic field, and endless other factors

                Ultimately, models are extreme simplifications, as are measurements. The universe doesn’t care about units or numbers, the universe works on ratios. Numbers aren’t real - they’re a mental shortcut. Something exists or it doesn’t, there isn’t two of anyone as far as reality is concerned. Our universe cannot be compressed beyond itself without losing information

                You probably don’t care about how much torque your car has on Io, but reality does. 10k tons of TNT is not remotely going to be the same as a nuclear explosion, but humans will only see a mushroom cloud and destruction over a similar area

                But models are useful - they predict well enough to give us a starting point.