Difference between revisions of "Talk:89: Gravitational Mass"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 20: Line 20:
 
:*[[1261: Shake That]]
 
:*[[1261: Shake That]]
 
:BUT there is a category here: [[: Category:Your Mom ]], most were already there but I did add two to this category. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 
:BUT there is a category here: [[: Category:Your Mom ]], most were already there but I did add two to this category. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 +
 +
Ok, a bit of a nit-pick:  But gravitational attraction goes '''down''', not up, with the square of the distance.  [[User:Danshoham|Mountain Hikes]] ([[User talk:Danshoham|talk]]) 09:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:46, 31 August 2015

Can anyone add more information about the information stated in the first panel? It is the most intriguing part. --NeatNit (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two ways to look at mass; through gravity and through inertia. When you look at it through gravity then mass is basically how much a body is affected by gravity, or how much gravity it has. When you look at it through inertia then mass is how much a body resists changes velocity, ie. how hard it is to make a body (like a car) accelerate/decelerate. It turns out that looking at it boths ways gives the same result (same mass). --BorisIvanBabic (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
In other words, apparently, inertial and gravitational mass for a given body are always identical, or rather reflect the same underlying characteristic of the body which we measure as mass, for any object in the universe; although certain theories explain why this might be the case, none adequately explain why it must be. ---Jolbucley (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Or just link it with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Development_of_gravitation_theory .Wikipedia usually explains things better than anything short of a school book. Tora (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the comic says that there doesn't seem to be a reason for it to be true, and the title text, I think that the missing part of the joke possibly had something to do with her being "heavier" than what a scale would show (since the scale would use the square law to get the mass from the force), and possibly that she is immovable (or hard to move) --BorisIvanBabic (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I only realized on the second glance that the title text actually can't only be referred to the attraction of masses but also to the attractiveness of a person; in this case the attraction would not go up as you approach but as you go away because you wouldn't see just how ugly the person is. So the text not only puns on a false relation between distance and gravitational attraction but also on how unattractive "yo mama" is, creating a link to the initial idea of the kind of joke Black Hat is presenting Tora (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I was gonna add a mention of another "yo mama" joke in Open Mic Night, but when I did a search, I discovered that there have actually been quite a lot of them. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] . . . How many of these should we mention? And is this an Official XKCD Theme? 199.27.128.66 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice job. Internal links do work like this (look at my edit):
BUT there is a category here: Category:Your Mom , most were already there but I did add two to this category. --Dgbrt (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, a bit of a nit-pick: But gravitational attraction goes down, not up, with the square of the distance. Mountain Hikes (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)