Denspressure vs Reality

Though if it's being viewed from the perspective of acceleration less as a separate trait and more as a consequence of 'stored' velocity, it makes a kind of sense. Unintuitive, but I'm used to that.

No it doesn't.
The only way for it to make sense is if you ignore the acceleration required to bring something up to speed (and ignore reality).

The only bit I don't really understand is that it seems as though the platform would go up for longer if it was decelerated for a moment than if it was accelerated, given that the former seems to decelerate to zero while the latter decelerates temporarily (especially if we're only dealing with short bursts of acceleration) before coming to a dead stop.
I was thinking about it through the lens of approximation; like you brought up earlier, attaining a perfectly constant velocity is nigh-impossible, even if we can get close, so presumably short bursts of either acceleration or deceleration would function similarly to a constant velocity, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Might just be how I'm approaching it though.

Not just how you are approaching it, how he is approaching it.
He has already said a bunch on acceleration for specific examples that he can't easily go back on.
So now when confronted with this he has 3 options:
Have it stop dead instantly, but that would mean that things stop dead without being at a constant speed.
Have it accelerate a bit to match the prior constant speed, but that would require it magically gaining eneryg.
Have is slow down gradually - the only option left.

Instead of trying to construct a model with all aspects in mind, he does it piecemeal making up excuses as he goes and ends up with these problems.

Quote from: Jane

So an object that accelerates for one second to reach the same speed as an object that's been accelerating for an hour, is going to decelerate for less time before coming to a dead stop? That makes sense in line with everything else you've said, I just wasn't sure.

correct.

Contradicted by all observations which indicate the deceleration is roughly constant, regardless of if it is the result of a slow or rapid acceleration.
Instead, the time required to come to a dead stop correlates to the velocity.

Quote from: Jane

And if that's right, I think my last question is on what happens when the platform in question decelerates. Say, the lift in question decelerates when the rope's cut; it's losing power not at a constant speed, but it has no upwards acceleration, so would that cause a dead stop too?

No. It causes a ever reducing upward movement until it stops dead before acceleration downwards.

Why does it do that?
How long would it take to reduce? This is a situation which doesn't match with any of your previously described ones.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 27, 2017, 01:45:06 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 01:40:05 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on November 27, 2017, 10:02:18 AM

If so than why can't there be a constant RATE of acceleration?

Because acceleration is a rate of speed change at all times.

And speed is a rate of position change at all times.

If there were no position change there would be no arguments about movement, ever.

That is entirely ignoring the argument. I never suggested no velocity, just no constant velocity, akin to you suggesting no constant acceleration.
Your objection seems to be that acceleration is a rate of change, but so is velocity/speed. As such, your argument applies equally to constant velocity. So following your line of reasoning you can't have a constant velocity.

You sure do seem to like making such inane objections. What is wrong with constant acceleration?

I'll make it as simple as I have done.
Acceleration is exactly what it means.
It means that the rate of speed changes positively.

No, it means the time rate of change of velocity. In layman usage it is typically associated with the time rate of change in speed or velocity, often used interchangably, and often not used when it is purely opposite the direction of motion.

It can never ever be constant until acceleration ceases to be acceleration.

As it is a rate, it can be.

When an object travels the same distance every second, then the object is moving with constant velocity.

Then you accept that you can have a constant rate of change.
Velocity is the time rate of change in position.
Acceleration is the time rate of change in velocity.

As such, why can you have a constant velocity but not a constant acceleration?
Both are time rates of change, that is a measure of how quickly something is changing.

All your arguments so far basically say you can't have a constant velocity and acceleration at the same time. But no one is suggesting that.

You're taking about vertical up and down rocket wise, right?
I don't agree with the negative.
The negative would be deceleration up after acceleration not acceleration down after the stop right after deceleration.

Not necessarily rocketwise, in any form.
It equally applies to movement along any axis.

Neither reality nor mainstream science make a distinction between positive and negative acceleration except the directionality of the resulting change in velocity.
This is primarily because all velocity is relative.
A simple example is air resistance. A positive acceleration to move you forwards as a result of a constant wind (which is still air resistance) is no different to your motion through stationary air slowing you down (a negative acceleration).

Acceleration is acceleration and to me it's all energy applied positive.

But acceleration isn't energy applied. It is a change in velocity per unit time.

We really need to change many definitions to make things a bit more real.

No we don't. The current definition (of mainstream science, not yours) work just fine.
Your changing definitions seems to be to make it more delusional.

And now for the simple one point you might respond to:

Acceleration is the time rate of change of velocity.
Velocity (aka speed) is the time rate of change of position (aka position, aka displacement).

Both are time rates of change.
So if you can't have a constant acceleration because it is a change in velocity, then by the same reasoning you cannot have a constant velocity as it is a time rate of change of position.

So you can't have either be constant, or either can be constant.
So which is it?

If you disagree, explain clearly addressing what I have said.

Thanks for the answers. This is the main bit that seemed weird. Just seems odd that if you use the lift and platform going at a constant speed again, the platform would keep going up for longer if the lift slowed for a moment, than if the lift just released it while it was going at a constant speed.

If that lift is going up at a constant speed it requires more energy each second it advances at that constant speed.
You could almost look at it as acceleration of applied energy, meaning you need more of it to elevate the mass (lift) at that constant speed/velocity.
If that energy ceases there is no further gain for the lift because that further gain required further added energy or further accelerated energy to keep the pulley at a constant.

I don't know if you'll grasp this or if it skews but I'll be happy to explain it differently if you don't.
However, if anyone can get it, you can.

Anyway, if that accelerated energy in that motor and pulley kept the lift at a constant mph but then has the extra energy boost (power surge) for that second, then that pulley is acting like a springboard yank on that rope and lift, which stops the constant velocity and immediately changes it to acceleration only transferred to the rope and lift from that initial pulley surge.

From this immediate point you would see it as a knee bender if you were in that lift for that split second and then as quickly as you had a split second knee bender you would immediately return to straight legs.
You accelerated and then almost immediately decelerated almost immediately until you then almost immediately revert back to your constant speed/mph and back to acceleration of motor energy to keep it constant.

when an object travels the same distance every second, then the object is said to be moving with constant velocity.Though if it's being viewed from the perspective of acceleration less as a separate trait and more as a consequence of 'stored' velocity, it makes a kind of sense. Unintuitive, but I'm used to that.

Acceleration is exactly stored energy.
Constant velocity is energy used to advance the mass for that immediate environment, vertically.

Thanks for helping me understand your model.
The only bit I don't really understand is that it seems as though the platform would go up for longer if it was decelerated for a moment than if it was accelerated, given that the former seems to decelerate to zero while the latter decelerates temporarily (especially if we're only dealing with short bursts of acceleration) before coming to a dead stop.

Think of firing an stone from a catapult, vertically.
As soon as you release your grip from the stone and sling to allow the rubber to release stored energy, that is when your springboard starts and only then.
From that point on your stone is decelerating as it moves vertically into the sky.

That initial jolt of allowing the release of the stone is like the surge of the pulley.
In this situation you can never have a constant velocity.

With the pulley and motor vertically advancing the lift by accelerated energy to keep a constant speed, we never store energy for potential energy use, unless we add a kick of extra energy (surge or motor acceleration, not to be mistaken for energy acceleration required for the constant speed).

Confusing isn't it?

To make this easier.
I I asked you to raise me up on a rope and I said to try and keep me at a constant speed, at least by feel and eye, you know that to do this you cannot just apply the same energy and you would have to add energy as I'm raised.
If you then yanked that rope you would accelerate me from that constant velocity for however much energy you applied to effect that acceleration/yank/springboard effect onto me which means you used even more energy than the small acceleration of it you used to keep me constant..


Totally different if you were doing it horizontally because once you dragged a vehicle to constant speed you would use the same amount of energy after initial acceleration up to that constant point.





 

I was thinking about it through the lens of approximation; like you brought up earlier, attaining a perfectly constant velocity is nigh-impossible, even if we can get close, so presumably short bursts of either acceleration or deceleration would function similarly to a constant velocity, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Might just be how I'm approaching it though.

Let's see how you interpret all of the above and see what you think.

And now for the simple one point you might respond to:

Acceleration is the time rate of change of velocity.
Velocity (aka speed) is the time rate of change of position (aka position, aka displacement).

Both are time rates of change.
So if you can't have a constant acceleration because it is a change in velocity, then by the same reasoning you cannot have a constant velocity as it is a time rate of change of position.

So you can't have either be constant, or either can be constant.
So which is it?

If you disagree, explain clearly addressing what I have said.

If you want to argue that way then let's opt for the constant mph or m/s or k/ph or whatever.

Either way you are not having acceleration as a constant in my book.

Quote from: Jane on November 27, 2017, 05:13:42 PM

Thanks for the answers. This is the main bit that seemed weird. Just seems odd that if you use the lift and platform going at a constant speed again, the platform would keep going up for longer if the lift slowed for a moment, than if the lift just released it while it was going at a constant speed.

If that lift is going up at a constant speed it requires more energy each second it advances at that constant speed.
You could almost look at it as acceleration of applied energy, meaning you need more of it to elevate the mass (lift) at that constant speed/velocity.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Incorrect!
If that lift is going up at a constant speed it requires the same energy each second it advances at that constant speed.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 12:01:31 AM

Quote from: Jane on November 27, 2017, 05:13:42 PM

Thanks for the answers. This is the main bit that seemed weird. Just seems odd that if you use the lift and platform going at a constant speed again, the platform would keep going up for longer if the lift slowed for a moment, than if the lift just released it while it was going at a constant speed.

If that lift is going up at a constant speed it requires more energy each second it advances at that constant speed.
You could almost look at it as acceleration of applied energy, meaning you need more of it to elevate the mass (lift) at that constant speed/velocity.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Incorrect!
If that lift is going up at a constant speed it requires the same energy each second it advances at that constant speed.

Nope. That would make no sense whatsoever.

If you want to argue that way then let's opt for the constant mph or m/s or k/ph or whatever.

Again, that is a rate of change.
The change in position per unit time, measured with position in miles or metres or km, and time measured in hours or seconds.

Are you fine with constant m/s^2?

If that lift is going up at a constant speed it requires more energy each second it advances at that constant speed.

Yes, it requires more energy each second, but the amount of energy given in each second is the same.
i.e. if in 1 s it requires 1 J, then in 2 s it will require 2 J, 3 s requires 3 J and so on, but in each of the seconds, it only gets 1 extra J.

If that energy ceases there is no further gain for the lift because that further gain required further added energy or further accelerated energy to keep the pulley at a constant.

Except it has built up kinetic energy and that kinetic energy will keep it moving.
Also notice how here there is no difference between it accelerating previously and it moving at a constant velocity previously?
Either way, there is no additional input of energy.
All it has is its kinetic energy.

Acceleration is exactly stored energy.
Constant velocity is energy used to advance the mass for that immediate environment, vertically.

This disagrees with what you have stated before. (For now ignoring wind resistance and friction (to start with the basics))
When you accelerate you add energy to an object and this is stored in the object (typically known as kinetic energy).
When it is travelling upwards, you also apply potential energy to it. For it to travel at constant velocity you just apply the potential energy.
But it still has that built up energy from the initial acceleration.
If you stop applying energy then it will convert its kinetic energy into potential energy, resulting in it slowing down (but not instantly coming to a dead stop) if it is going vertical or continue at a constant velocity if going horizontal.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 12:08:04 AM

If you want to argue that way then let's opt for the constant mph or m/s or k/ph or whatever.

Again, that is a rate of change.
The change in position per unit time, measured with position in miles or metres or km, and time measured in hours or seconds.

Are you fine with constant m/s^2?

Absolutely not.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 12:01:31 AM

Acceleration is exactly stored energy.
Constant velocity is energy used to advance the mass for that immediate environment, vertically.

When you accelerate you add energy to an object and this is stored in the object (typically known as kinetic energy).
When it is travelling upwards, you also apply potential energy to it. For it to travel at constant velocity you just apply the potential energy.
But it still has that built up energy from the initial acceleration.

No it doesn't. Not when its reached constant velocity.
Once that is reached the acceleration ceases to be or has been acceleration because it's dissipated by the initial energy to attain that constant velocity.
It only becomes relevant again if there is acceleration from that point on, as in the pulley surge thought process.

If you stop applying energy then it will convert its kinetic energy into potential energy, resulting in it slowing down (but not instantly coming to a dead stop) if it is going vertical

Only if it's accelerating before energy is cut.

or continue at a constant velocity if going horizontal.

If energy is cut it does not continue at a constant velocity, horizontally.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 28, 2017, 12:31:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 12:08:04 AM

If you want to argue that way then let's opt for the constant mph or m/s or k/ph or whatever.

Again, that is a rate of change.
The change in position per unit time, measured with position in miles or metres or km, and time measured in hours or seconds.

Are you fine with constant m/s^2?

Absolutely not.

Why?
Why is one constant rate  fine but not another?

No it doesn't. Not when its reached constant velocity.

If it doesn't, where did all that energy go?
Did you have it just magically vanish?

Only if it's accelerating before energy is cut.

Again, if it doesn't, where does all the energy go?

If energy is cut it does not continue at a constant velocity, horizontally.

Only if friction becomes significant (which is more advanced).
What is important is that if it is moving at a constant velocity and power is cut, it doesn't just stop dead.

Quote from: MicroBeta on November 27, 2017, 04:33:08 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 01:35:52 PM

Quote from: MicroBeta on November 27, 2017, 10:01:54 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 08:17:38 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on November 27, 2017, 07:58:52 AM

I'm trying to understand.  You're saying we have an applied force without an acceleration and that force is the mass of the object?  In denpressure F=m?

No I'm not.
You cannot get to a constant speed without acceleration.

I still do not understand you.  Below it your post that I’m having trouble with. 

I’m saying that without acceleration and object’s speed cannot change.  Your post states “the applied force is the mass of the vehicle”.  What is unclear is how a mass can exert a force to stop an object without acceleration. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 07:17:21 AM

In terms of slowing down the applied force is the mass of the vehicle. There is no acceleration.

Note that I’m using acceleration as signed quantity.  It’s either positive or negative (± acceleration). 

Mike

What do you mean by positive and negative acceleration?

Are you meaning applied energy vertically up and then a stop then acceleration vertically down?

Interesting but no, I’m not talking about “applied energy”.
 
Acceleration is a vector quantity.  In engineering the direction of an acceleration is important. However, for our discussion a positive value will be an acceleration and a negative value a deceleration.  Although the signs are analytically significant they are functionally identical.

Mike

Ok so you have deceleration as the negative effect of acceleration.
Fair enough I can live with that.

It doesn't change anything I've said though.

Understood.  However, you still haven’t answered my question.

I’m saying that without an acceleration, an object’s speed cannot change.  Your post states “the applied force is the mass of the vehicle”.  How does a mass exert a force to stop an object without an acceleration applied to that object?

In terms of slowing down the applied force is the mass of the vehicle. There is no acceleration.

Mike

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 12:40:17 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 28, 2017, 12:31:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 12:08:04 AM

If you want to argue that way then let's opt for the constant mph or m/s or k/ph or whatever.

Again, that is a rate of change.
The change in position per unit time, measured with position in miles or metres or km, and time measured in hours or seconds.

Are you fine with constant m/s^2?

Absolutely not.

Why?
Why is one constant rate  fine but not another?

It depends on the constant.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 01:01:15 AM

No it doesn't. Not when its reached constant velocity.

If it doesn't, where did all that energy go?
Did you have it just magically vanish?

The energy was used up to attain the constant velocity mph.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 01:01:15 AM

Only if it's accelerating before energy is cut.

Again, if it doesn't, where does all the energy go?

Again, the energy was used up to attain the constant velocity mph.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 01:01:15 AM

If energy is cut it does not continue at a constant velocity, horizontally.

Only if friction becomes significant (which is more advanced).
What is important is that if it is moving at a constant velocity and power is cut, it doesn't just stop dead.

I never said it did just stop, horizontally and you absolutely know this.

Understood.  However, you still haven’t answered my question.

I’m saying that without an acceleration, an object’s speed cannot change.

Yep, it would mean nothing would ever move.

 

Your post states “the applied force is the mass of the vehicle”.  How does a mass exert a force to stop an object without an acceleration applied to that object?

Mike

It doesn't.

In terms of slowing down the applied force is the mass of the vehicle. There is no acceleration.

I'm talking about slowing down from a acceleration to a constant velocity/speed/mph from the initial applied force to move it in the first place.
The mass of the vehicle against the friction.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 28, 2017, 01:05:24 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 12:40:17 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 28, 2017, 12:31:28 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 12:08:04 AM

If you want to argue that way then let's opt for the constant mph or m/s or k/ph or whatever.

Again, that is a rate of change.
The change in position per unit time, measured with position in miles or metres or km, and time measured in hours or seconds.

Are you fine with constant m/s^2?

Absolutely not.

Why?
Why is one constant rate  fine but not another?

It depends on the constant.

Why?
Both are time rates of change.
Why can you have a constant for one of them but not the other?

The energy was used up to attain the constant velocity mph.

Again, where did it go?
Presumably it was used to attain the constant velocity and thus is stored as that velocity.

I never said it did just stop, horizontally and you absolutely know this.

But the same argument applies.
Without inertia, what keeps it going?

I'm talking about slowing down from a acceleration to a constant velocity/speed/mph from the initial applied force to move it in the first place.
The mass of the vehicle against the friction.

There is no need to slow down after acceleration to maintain a constant velocity. You just stop accelerating.

Why?
Both are time rates of change.
Why can you have a constant for one of them but not the other?

Acceleration is a mph build.
Everything else is not.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 02:16:36 AM

The energy was used up to attain the constant velocity mph.

Again, where did it go?
Presumably it was used to attain the constant velocity and thus is stored as that velocity.

It was used to attain a constant velocity.
Once at constant velocity it means you have no more energy to accelerate and only enough energy to hold a constant velocity.
You have to understand the differences in terms of how it's all used, because the variations are many when comparing horizontal vehicles or vertical fixed energy applications as well as the obvious rocket in atmosphere argument.

It's not as straight cut as it can appear and it would depend on what's being argued.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 02:16:36 AM

I never said it did just stop, horizontally and you absolutely know this.

But the same argument applies.
Without inertia, what keeps it going?

No such thing as inertia

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 02:28:40 AM

I'm talking about slowing down from a acceleration to a constant velocity/speed/mph from the initial applied force to move it in the first place.
The mass of the vehicle against the friction.

There is no need to slow down after acceleration to maintain a constant velocity. You just stop accelerating.

When you stop accelerating you decelerate.
When you stop going at a constant speed you slow from that exact constant on a horizontal but stop dead on a vertical.

<snip>

Quote from: JackBlack on November 28, 2017, 03:48:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 02:16:36 AM

I never said it did just stop, horizontally and you absolutely know this.

But the same argument applies.
Without inertia, what keeps it going?

No such thing as inertia
<snip>

However, your explanations exhibit inertial behavior.  Your so called “slosh effect”.  If there is no such thing as inertia, how do you explain the effect of sloshing atmosphere?

Mike

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 04:44:34 AM

<snip>

Quote from: JackBlack on November 28, 2017, 03:48:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 02:16:36 AM

I never said it did just stop, horizontally and you absolutely know this.

But the same argument applies.
Without inertia, what keeps it going?

No such thing as inertia
<snip>

However, your explanations exhibit inertial behavior.  Your so called “slosh effect”.  If there is no such thing as inertia, how do you explain the effect of sloshing atmosphere?

Mike

Applied energy to a mass by overcoming atmospheric pressure and  friction by that mass.


Study this, it may help you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 02:00:53 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on November 27, 2017, 12:38:03 PM

Let’s make this simple with a table:

Time Vel  Acc
0       0    1
1       1    1
2       2    1
3       3    1
4       4    1
5       5    1
6       6    1
7       7    1
8       8    1
9       9    1
10     10  1

From time 0 to 10 the acceleration is always 1. It is constant.

The rate of change can itself be constant over a period of time.

I'll make it as simple as I have done.
Acceleration is exactly what it means.
It means that the rate of speed changes positively.
It can never ever be constant until acceleration ceases to be acceleration.

At any point from time 0 to time 10 is the acceleration anything other than 1?

Answer the question.

Quote from: Mainframes on November 27, 2017, 04:01:19 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 02:00:53 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on November 27, 2017, 12:38:03 PM

Let’s make this simple with a table:

Time Vel  Acc
0       0    1
1       1    1
2       2    1
3       3    1
4       4    1
5       5    1
6       6    1
7       7    1
8       8    1
9       9    1
10     10  1

From time 0 to 10 the acceleration is always 1. It is constant.

The rate of change can itself be constant over a period of time.

I'll make it as simple as I have done.
Acceleration is exactly what it means.
It means that the rate of speed changes positively.
It can never ever be constant until acceleration ceases to be acceleration.

At any point from time 0 to time 10 is the acceleration anything other than 1?

Answer the question.

If it's always 1 then it's not acceleration.

Quote from: Mainframes on November 28, 2017, 10:39:21 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on November 27, 2017, 04:01:19 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 02:00:53 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on November 27, 2017, 12:38:03 PM

Let’s make this simple with a table:

Time Vel  Acc
0       0    1
1       1    1
2       2    1
3       3    1
4       4    1
5       5    1
6       6    1
7       7    1
8       8    1
9       9    1
10     10  1

From time 0 to 10 the acceleration is always 1. It is constant.

The rate of change can itself be constant over a period of time.

I'll make it as simple as I have done.
Acceleration is exactly what it means.
It means that the rate of speed changes positively.
It can never ever be constant until acceleration ceases to be acceleration.

At any point from time 0 to time 10 is the acceleration anything other than 1?

Answer the question.

If it's always 1 then it's not acceleration.

What is the change in velocity at each time step?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 10:49:32 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on November 28, 2017, 10:39:21 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on November 27, 2017, 04:01:19 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 02:00:53 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on November 27, 2017, 12:38:03 PM

Let’s make this simple with a table:

Time Vel  Acc
0       0    1
1       1    1
2       2    1
3       3    1
4       4    1
5       5    1
6       6    1
7       7    1
8       8    1
9       9    1
10     10  1

From time 0 to 10 the acceleration is always 1. It is constant.

The rate of change can itself be constant over a period of time.

I'll make it as simple as I have done.
Acceleration is exactly what it means.
It means that the rate of speed changes positively.
It can never ever be constant until acceleration ceases to be acceleration.

At any point from time 0 to time 10 is the acceleration anything other than 1?

Answer the question.

If it's always 1 then it's not acceleration.

What is the change in velocity at each time step?

It doesn't matter what you say the change is. If acceleration is always 1 then it accelerated from zero and then became a constant speed mph.

Quote from: Mainframes on November 28, 2017, 11:05:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 10:49:32 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on November 28, 2017, 10:39:21 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on November 27, 2017, 04:01:19 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 02:00:53 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on November 27, 2017, 12:38:03 PM

Let’s make this simple with a table:

Time Vel  Acc
0       0    1
1       1    1
2       2    1
3       3    1
4       4    1
5       5    1
6       6    1
7       7    1
8       8    1
9       9    1
10     10  1

From time 0 to 10 the acceleration is always 1. It is constant.

The rate of change can itself be constant over a period of time.

I'll make it as simple as I have done.
Acceleration is exactly what it means.
It means that the rate of speed changes positively.
It can never ever be constant until acceleration ceases to be acceleration.

At any point from time 0 to time 10 is the acceleration anything other than 1?

Answer the question.

If it's always 1 then it's not acceleration.

What is the change in velocity at each time step?

It doesn't matter what you say the change is. If acceleration is always 1 then it accelerated from zero and then became a constant speed mph.

You're missing what acceleration is.  The change in speed from one time step to the next.  If it changes there is an applied acceleration for that time step.  If the next time step has a different speed the there was an acceleration for that time step. 

If a car goes from 0-60 mph in 5 seconds then the average acceleration is 12 m/s^2.  So in the first second the speed goes from 0-12 mph and so on to 60 mph.  It is entirely possible to have a constant change in speed.

As long as speed is changing it is accelerating.  It’s the very definition of acceleration...unless you know a way to change speed without acceleration.  And, of course you don’t because that would be just silly.

Mike

Acceleration is a mph build.
Everything else is not.

So?
Speed is miles build.
Distance is not.

Quote from: Mainframes on November 28, 2017, 11:05:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 28, 2017, 10:49:32 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on November 28, 2017, 10:39:21 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on November 27, 2017, 04:01:19 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 27, 2017, 02:00:53 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on November 27, 2017, 12:38:03 PM

Let’s make this simple with a table:

Time Vel  Acc
0       0    1
1       1    1
2       2    1
3       3    1
4       4    1
5       5    1
6       6    1
7       7    1
8       8    1
9       9    1
10     10  1

From time 0 to 10 the acceleration is always 1. It is constant.

The rate of change can itself be constant over a period of time.

I'll make it as simple as I have done.
Acceleration is exactly what it means.
It means that the rate of speed changes positively.
It can never ever be constant until acceleration ceases to be acceleration.

At any point from time 0 to time 10 is the acceleration anything other than 1?

Answer the question.

If it's always 1 then it's not acceleration.

What is the change in velocity at each time step?

It doesn't matter what you say the change is. If acceleration is always 1 then it accelerated from zero and then became a constant speed mph.

The velocity is quite clearly not constant.

At each step the velocity has increased by 1.
Therefore the acceleration at all times has been 1.
Therefore acceleration is constant and velocity is non constant.