No it doesn't. My ego forces me to look at things in a more realistic and basic way.
No it doesn't.
It forces you to refuse to admit your model is wrong or your understanding of something is wrong, continually acting like your model is correct no matter how many problems are pointed out with it and refusing to accept that there is nothing wrong with the current model even though you can point out no problem with it.
You can't even accept something as simple as constant acceleration.
You are stuck on acceleration as being something other than what it really is, in reality.
No, you are stuck on acceleration, viewing it in one specific way and refusing to see it any other way.
Meanwhile you are stuck viewing velocity in a different specific way, even though the way you view the 2 can be switched.
There's absolutely no reason to say what you say in terms of it meaning anything physical.
Yes there is. Acceleration, like velocity, is a rate.
This has direct physical implications.
It is a measure of how quickly your velocity is changing.
Just like velocity is a measure of how quickly your position is changing.
If there is, then show me.
We have repeatedly with you just ignoring it and repeating the same childish crap.
Acceleration is one word that describes advanced change in movement.
Change will never ever be constant whether you jerk it or jolt it or yank it or push it or kick it, etc.
No, it can be constant as it is a rate.
Velocity is one word that describes a change in position.
As such, the exact same arguments apply for acceleration and velocity.
If you can't have constant acceleration because it is a change you can't have constant velocity because it is a change.
This has all been pointed out before and you have been unable to refute it in any way.
This shows that either you are a dishonest troll, or your ego blinds you.
Which is it?
But they don't appear to be the same volume.
If you want to go down that route, do it right.
If you see a 1 inch cube of aluminium and a 1 inch cube of lead then you could argue that they have the same volume by appearance.
i.e. that they appear to be the same volume.
But you just said they don't appear to be the same volume.
Which is it?
Do they have the same volume by appearance and thus appear to be the same volume, or do they not?
You do sure seem to love contradicting yourself.
The reality would be massively different when you go down the viewing scale but there you go.
Not they aren't.
They are both FCC structures.
They have the same portion of free space in their volume.
I'll go through it all so you are clear on what I'm saying.
We know what you are saying, we know it is bullshit.
Perhaps you should start listening to what we are saying and see if you can understand it; or see if you can do more than just repeating the same refuted crap.
If the bus accelerates from a standing position then you jerk, because the bus has changed it's speed/mph from zero to wherever it accelerates to in terms of a gain in mph.
No, the bus has jerked, because it has changed its acceleration.
Similarly, if the bus was in one position, and then moves, the bus has changed its position. Velocity is a change as well.
Until it reaches a set mph it will always be changing/advancing speed (accelerating).
And it can do so at a constant rate, i.e. without jerk.
And until it reaches a set position, it will always be changing/advancing position (moving at a speed).
If the bus changes gear during this acceleration, it creates another jerk and that jerk is the direct result of DECELERATION before gear change to then allow ACCELERATION to begin, once again.
Yes, that jerk is a result of change in acceleration. But it doesn't require deceleration.
It is because the acceleration is no longer constant.
Although even more fun you are actually more prone to feeling the rate of change of jerk.
Until you can keep a set mph going after all the jolting and jerking through the gears to decelerate and the accelerate once again.....only then will you be able to hit a constant velocity or a set mph.
Or you can go through some jerking and then have a constant acceleration.
But only when you stop moving entirely (i.e. have a velocity of 0) will you be able to hit a constant position.
It's pretty simple and has no requirements for gobbledygook nonsense to be added.
Yet none of that has addressed the issue raised, that you can have a constant acceleration as it is a rate, just like velocity, and just like position and velocity, you can have a rate of change of acceleration i.e. jerk.
There isn't a change in acceleration.
There is a change in speed or velocity.
Acceleration is simply that.
Acceleration is a rate of change in speed or velocity.
If there was no change in acceleration the acceleration would need to be constant.
So do you now accept you can have constant acceleration?
I'm simply telling you
And that is the problem.
You are just "telling us".
You aren't providing any rational justification.
You are just spouting crap.
Changing velocity does not change acceleration.
Yes, that is right, you can have constant acceleration where your velocity changes at a constant rate.
No such thing as gravity.
You are yet to explain away all the evidence for it, or provide any rational reason to doubt it.
You can always change velocity but you can never ever change acceleration, no matter what.
If that was the case, your acceleration would always be constant.
The simple fact is people change acceleration all the time.
If you are standing still for a period of time, and then start walking, you have changed acceleration.
It doesn't matter. You either accelerate or you don't.
It does matter. Acceleration isn't an on off thing.
It is a rate.
What you are doing is akin to saying speed doesn't matter, you either move or you don't.
If you move forward you change your position and if you move backwards you change your position.
If you continue to move forward then you are moving.
If you cease to move (i.e. velocity=0) then you become a constant position.
Simple enough and all what's applied to everything...including your rollercoaster.
No. Too simple.
It ignores the rate of acceleration, just like you would be too simple if you ignored the velocity, or rate of moving.
What are they doing wrong?
They're just doing what I've said.
No they aren't.
They are designing taking jerk into account.
Take some time to think on it.
Good advice, perhaps you should stop spouting so much childish bullshit and try thinking for once in your life?