3 ms·

I hereby object to their use of "air resistant." I know what they're trying to say, but a ball does not resist the air. The air resists the ball. Air resistance

I hereby object to their use of "air resistant." I know what they're trying to say, but a ball does not resist the air. The air resists the ball. Air resistance is a property of the air, in other words, not the ball. So a ball can't be "air resistant" at all, much less more air resistant or less air resistant. In fact, because air is where the friction and resistance comes from, it seems like "air resistance" as possessed by a ball, would be a good thing. "This ball flies farther because it's more air resistant."

tensor_rank_0 9y ago
isn't the term "air resistant" describing a relationship between the two components, atmosphere and projectile? The ball absolutely exerts drag on the air as the air rushes past it (imagine a stationary ball in a windstorm). all that is required to apply this to the ball as a projectile is a reference frame that takes the ball as the reference point.
- rdiddly 9y ago
  I knew I'd get this comment, hehheh. Sure, it takes two (materials) to (do the friction) tango, and the ball actually does resist the air. But the goal is to move the ball, and a ball game in a vacuum would still be a ball game, so I guess I'm trying to think of a better way to say it. Not having any luck, BTW
  - BeeOnRope 9y ago
    They probably should have said the balls [may] have a lower drag coefficient.
abtinf 9y ago
This seems like intentional trolling. You are nitpicking a word in the article that did not impede communication. You incorrectly describe friction without even a first semester understanding of physics.
- rdiddly 9y ago
  Your comment is way more trollish than mine, and contains four separate meritless ad hominem attacks. If you don't want to participate in a discussion of words and their meanings that I opened then the solution is to move on, not try to shut it down.
- rdiddly 9y ago
  Suddenly realized why the disconnect. You're talking physics (high school physics at that), while I'm only talking about English. We don't say an airplane is air resistant. We say it experiences air resistance. Case closed. You need to relax, I'm not trolling.

tensor_rank_0 9y ago

isn't the term "air resistant" describing a relationship between the two components, atmosphere and projectile? The ball absolutely exerts drag on the air as the air rushes past it (imagine a stationary ball in a windstorm). all that is required to apply this to the ball as a projectile is a reference frame that takes the ball as the reference point.

rdiddly 9y ago
I knew I'd get this comment, hehheh. Sure, it takes two (materials) to (do the friction) tango, and the ball actually does resist the air. But the goal is to move the ball, and a ball game in a vacuum would still be a ball game, so I guess I'm trying to think of a better way to say it. Not having any luck, BTW
- BeeOnRope 9y ago
  They probably should have said the balls [may] have a lower drag coefficient.

abtinf 9y ago

This seems like intentional trolling. You are nitpicking a word in the article that did not impede communication. You incorrectly describe friction without even a first semester understanding of physics.

rdiddly 9y ago
Your comment is way more trollish than mine, and contains four separate meritless ad hominem attacks. If you don't want to participate in a discussion of words and their meanings that I opened then the solution is to move on, not try to shut it down.
rdiddly 9y ago
Suddenly realized why the disconnect. You're talking physics (high school physics at that), while I'm only talking about English. We don't say an airplane is air resistant. We say it experiences air resistance. Case closed. You need to relax, I'm not trolling.