• Wilshire@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    From his frame of reference the train is still, so he’s using the same amount of energy.

    • rbn@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Oh, is it? I thought that’s just applicable in an enclosed space. So if I jump on top of a moving something, I should still land in the same spot?

      • Rinn@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        2 months ago

        …yes? That’s how physics works (provided that that something is moving at a constant velocity). The only difference between an enclosed moving platform and unenclosed one is that there may be additional issues with the wind/surrounding air, but the train in this post isn’t moving fast enough for that to be a concern.

        • rbn@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Yeah, makes sense in the end even though it’s hard to grasp for me. Especially if the object on top is freely rolling and therefore feels somewhat decoupled to me. I imagined the train below the bike to behave like a tablecloth pulled from underneath a glass and where the glass keeps in the same place thanks to inertia.

          But coming back to my initial statement, if the train’s movement doesn’t impact the point of landing, does it increase the difficulty for the stunts? Or is it more for the nice effect in the video?

          • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s for the nice effect, it looks cool with that perspective, almost videogame-y, while normally it’s hard to follow any stunt in this angle. It’s very share-able.