Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 1 年前Physics ruleslrpnk.netimagemessage-square45fedilinkarrow-up1482arrow-down18
arrow-up1474arrow-down1imagePhysics ruleslrpnk.netTrack_Shovel@slrpnk.net to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 1 年前message-square45fedilink
minus-squareji17br@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前My mistake, I didn’t check his math. I thought he was saying if you take distance apart at t(n) and subtract distance apart at t(n-1) you will get distance/sec.
minus-squareSpaceNoodle@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前Only if you divide by time. Including units is an essential sanity check. Also, the rest of the math needs to be correct.
minus-squareji17br@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前Well that’s my point. The answer is correct in this specific case, because it’s already “built-in” so to speak.
minus-squareji17br@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前I’m talking about my previous response. I already said their answer is wrong.
My mistake, I didn’t check his math. I thought he was saying if you take distance apart at t(n) and subtract distance apart at t(n-1) you will get distance/sec.
Only if you divide by time. Including units is an essential sanity check.
Also, the rest of the math needs to be correct.
Well that’s my point. The answer is correct in this specific case, because it’s already “built-in” so to speak.
No, their answer is wrong.
I’m talking about my previous response. I already said their answer is wrong.