<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>The fundamental definition of 'radial velocity' · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/astro-ph_0302522/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/astro-ph_0302522/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>The fundamental definition of 'radial velocity' — mentioned by raattgift</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18372235</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:astro-ph_0302522:18372235</guid><pubDate>Sat, 03 Nov 2018 20:18:53 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; It will go upwards, yes, but only because of an upwards velocity. In this picture, what imparted the upwards velocity to it, given its starting point on the ground? &amp;gt;&amp;gt; a falling ball [...] in reverse &amp;gt; it will still be accelerating downward. It seems strange to ask this of someone with your choice of username, but for the sake of anyone else who is reading along in this thread : Which way does a freely-falling accelerometer point? [1] (Ignoring the atmosphere.) - -- (But if we don&amp;#x27;t ignore the atmosphere, in the limit where a smartwatch inside a dropped wall reaches terminal velocity, which…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/astro-ph_0302522/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>astro-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
