4 ms·

Then you learn about escape velocity (to choose an example where no "tricks" are involved).

• rusk 5y ago
  And you end up right back where you started. Day to day, for most people in most cases what goes up must come down. That there are “special cases” such as “flight”, “parachutes” and “space travel” doesn’t invalidate the fact that - notwithstanding additional feats of engineering and expense - if you jump off this building you will break your leg.
  • alistairSH 5y ago
    To continue the bridge metaphor... there's a pot of gold under the bridge. Is jumping off the bridge survivable (low bridge, water underneath, you have a bungee cord)? Knowing the special cases has value.
    • rusk 5y ago
      Not arguing with that. Special cases don’t invalidate a rule though. Kirchhoff’s circuit laws continue to be a thing even if they break down at higher frequencies and give way to radio …
      • chrisseaton 5y ago
        > Kirchhoff’s circuit laws continue to be a thing even if they break down at higher frequencies and give way to radio … Do you think maybe we know this because someone decided to check the assumption? That was the original point of this thread. You just gave an argument in support of it.
        • rusk 5y ago
          If that’s what you think then you haven’t been paying attention
  • chrisseaton 5y ago
    > Day to day, for most people in most cases Right but we're engineers - we're considering things outside the day to day and beyond most cases.
    • bumby 5y ago
      I think this is the correct take. Engineers are in the business of solving problems. So if the question is "How do I make something go up and NOT come down?" or "How do I make something come down differently?" then the obvious take isn't as useful.