Denspressure vs Reality

Quote from: Empirical on December 12, 2017, 11:48:12 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on December 12, 2017, 11:38:53 AM

And apparently acceleration can not be a constant.....

Because the constant expansion and contraction of the bubbles makes static acceleration impossible.

If I understand correctly, since acceleration is, by definition, a measure of change, it cannot be constant.

Yet velocity, which by definition is a measure of change, magically can be constant.

It's almost like there is no internal consistency.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 12, 2017, 07:49:36 AM

Quote from: Empirical on December 12, 2017, 07:33:52 AM

What's the difference between positive and negative charge super friction?
Why does the photoelectric effect only work on negatively charged metals?

You're sat there armed with all the info to reel off.
What are you after?
You don't understand denpressure so you won't understand anything I say, so stick to your photoelectric in the way you're told.

You don't believe in the electron model of the atom, I remembered an experiment that both shows evidence for electrons existing and can be done cheaply by anyone. I wanted to see if your theory has an explanation for the experiment as well, because from what I know of denpressure, it can't give a reason why positive and negative charges act differently in this case.

At the basic end of the scale it's merely differences in molecular density by pressure and decompression.

Trapped molecules and released molecules from high to lower pressure is how you will see positive to negative charges.
when none are at low verses high pressure then we can call this a neutral.

Absolutely everything works on high to low pressure which is friction/vibration and frequencies which creates absolutely everything we see and perceive and even don't quite see at the lowest levels from out senses.

You just have to go right down to the basics of the basics and work up to see how simple it all is but also how complicated it can become from that simplicity.

I need to know how you see molecules being constructed because the way I understand them, this would not work. 
So how are molecules constructed in your model?
Also, for the record, notice how you still didn't answer the question that was asked?  This may be in part because we are looking at molecules differently, hence my question.  But you simply said as some molecules leave others expand. 
The question was how that works.  Is it simply empty space filling the expansion, other molecules or what?

If I try to use analogies to explain you throw them away and go literally with them, so how in the hell am I going to explain to you if you are not willing to get onboard?


It's not easy to explain in any entirety because there's a hell of a lot to the molecules working. It isn't just blowing up a bubble and that's your molecule.
There's no free space that can be called free in the sense of the word, as in devoid of anything at all. A nothing. A true vacuum.

There is no free space, it's all took up and we could go into a perceived infinity of molecules down to the depths of the thought process of the mind and still not explain fully.
This is why basics must be used.

Let me just explain the process of what's happening with molecules in my model.

They are like layered gobstoppers but the layers themselves are molecule pressure bonds.
If you could super super super super magnify them to the depths of infinity you would be seeing molecular dots within dots ringed by dots and within dots.


Hard to picture and hard to explain unless we go to basic level to get the gist of it.
It doesn't help that people make it 1 million percent harder by going into mainstream mode against my theory.

Just try to understand it from my point whether you accept it or throw it away...if you're interested...and if not, then there should be no need to argue it.

I'll be happy to answer a question at a time but I'm not going to get swamped trying to answer numerous at a time that are designed to skew the issue. Not by you I might add but by some.

Maybe but I think in his model volume and density don't really change.

For instance, if you have one cubic inch of lead and one cubic inch of pudding.  It appears that they have the same volume but in actuality they don't.

No they don't have the same volume. You're getting yourself muddled up (hopefully by accident).
It's volume and mass, not density of that mass.

  The pudding has atmosphere trapped in it, well both do but the pudding has more.  If you were able to somehow squeeze that atmosphere out, then the volume of the pudding would be revealed to be much smaller.

If the pudding has more then the volume is different.
If you squeezed the atmosphere out then the pudding would show it's real displacing density.
It would end up being massively smaller than the lead and that's their virtually real atmospheric displacement and why they measure a weight much differently.

So a list of issues you are yet to address (non-exhaustive):
Why denspressure creates weight in the first place, specifically the directionality of it.
Why some things are pushed down and others are pushed up.
Why weight is proportional to mass (which can be measured due to inertia), rather than area or volume.
Why objects with the same crystal lattice (e.g. FCC) and thus the same proportion of voids have completely different densities.
Why evacuating the air from inside a sealed vessel makes it weigh less even though it displaces more atmosphere.
Why putting things in water results in a reduction in weight not a gain.
Why you aren't pushed against a cliff.
Why you continue moving when force is no longer applied (including your example where you are moving up a slope at a constant speed).
Why inertia and by extension the centrifugal force still works in a vacuum.
Why your acceleration in free fall (i.e. when air resistance is insignificant) remains the same regardless of pressure.
Why your weight, excluding the small contribution from buoyancy, remains the same regardless of pressure.
How a fluid filled barometer works.
Why the void appears in the first place when you invert the tube so it is upright, while it is not there when it is upside down.
Why the height of the column above the surface of the reservoir remains constant, regardless of the angle of the tube and the height of the tube, assuming it started upside down with no void and has a material of a given density and no air was allowed in and the tube itself is not limiting the height. It doesn't even depend on the shape of the tube.
Why a different fluid results in a completely different height.
Why a liquid to gas phase transition requires so much energy input without any change in temperature and results in a massive expansion.
Brownian motion.
PV=nRT

I have probably missed quite a lot, but that is a brief list.

You probably have missed a lot but everyone has been answered.
The issue for you is, you don't accept the answers but that isn't my problem.

I answered and that's good enough for me.
Your inability to understand any of it cannot be any other persons fault but your own.

I asked you to place one question at a time to me and never move on until you grasped it.
You couldn't even do that without going into mental breakdown mode the pretending you're calm.

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 12, 2017, 01:22:53 PM

Quote from: Empirical on December 12, 2017, 11:48:12 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on December 12, 2017, 11:38:53 AM

And apparently acceleration can not be a constant.....

Because the constant expansion and contraction of the bubbles makes static acceleration impossible.

If I understand correctly, since acceleration is, by definition, a measure of change, it cannot be constant.

Yet velocity, which by definition is a measure of change, magically can be constant.

It's almost like there is no internal consistency.

Velocity is speed in a given direction. Acceleration is change in velocity divided by time.

Speed is any constant mph at any specific time. Acceleration is a non constant speed or mph to the positive at an ever changing time.

You just have to go right down to the basics of the basics and work up to see how simple it all is but also how complicated it can become from that simplicity.

You mean you have to ignore all the complications which show your model to be BS?

If I try to use analogies to explain you throw them away and go literally with them, so how in the hell am I going to explain to you if you are not willing to get onboard?

How about with an actual explanation instead of trying to dodge the point with an analogy?

Let me just explain the process of what's happening with molecules in my model.

You don't have molecules.
Explain what is happening with your magic air pieces.

I'll be happy to answer a question at a time

You have shown this to be a lie repeatedly.
You are only happy to answer while you can make up BS to pretend you have an answer.

You probably have missed a lot but everyone has been answered.
The issue for you is, you don't accept the answers but that isn't my problem.

No, they haven't actually been answered.
You assert a bunch of nonsense which myself and others have refuted.
Your inability to explain things in a consistent manner is your problem, not ours.

I answered and that's good enough for me.

i.e. you don't give a damn if your model works and matches reality, you will just ignore the problems.

Your inability to understand any of it cannot be any other persons fault but your own.

I do understand. I realise its crap.
That is your problem, not mine.

I asked you to place one question at a time to me and never move on until you grasped it.

And I have done that repeatedly, and you just resorted to the same BS of claiming it has been explained and insulting me.

So if you can't even answer simple questions without that crap, can you really say it is anyone's fault but your own?

Velocity is speed in a given direction. Acceleration is change in velocity divided by time.

Velocity is a change in position divided by time.

Speed is any constant mph at any specific time. Acceleration is a non constant speed or mph to the positive at an ever changing time.

Yes, just like acceleration is any constant m/s^2 at any specific time; while speed is a non constant position at an ever changing time.

scepti, have you heard of "jerk" which is the change in acceleration?

First derivative of position:
Velocity

Second derivative of position:
Acceleration

Third derivative of position:
Jerk

scepti, have you heard of "jerk" which is the change in acceleration?

First derivative of position:
Velocity

Second derivative of position:
Acceleration

Third derivative of position:
Jerk

Jerk or jolt.
Can you give me a very simple analogy as to what you class Jerk as.
Just picture yourself driving your car and explain to me what happens when you jerk.


It doesn't sound right, does it? 

Anyway you know what I mean.

 you don't give a damn if your model works and matches reality, you will just ignore the problems.

It doesn't have any problems and certainly none that you can bring up when you have no clue what you're arguing against.

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 04:35:01 AM

scepti, have you heard of "jerk" which is the change in acceleration?

First derivative of position:
Velocity

Second derivative of position:
Acceleration

Third derivative of position:
Jerk

Jerk or jolt.
Can you give me a very simple analogy as to what you class Jerk as.
Just picture yourself driving your car and explain to me what happens when you jerk.


It doesn't sound right, does it? 

Anyway you know what I mean.

No analogy needed. Jerk is the rate of change of acceleration, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, velocity is the rate of change of position.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2017, 05:19:31 AM

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 04:35:01 AM

scepti, have you heard of "jerk" which is the change in acceleration?

First derivative of position:
Velocity

Second derivative of position:
Acceleration

Third derivative of position:
Jerk

Jerk or jolt.
Can you give me a very simple analogy as to what you class Jerk as.
Just picture yourself driving your car and explain to me what happens when you jerk.


It doesn't sound right, does it? 

Anyway you know what I mean.

No analogy needed. Jerk is the rate of change of acceleration, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, velocity is the rate of change of position.

So you can't actually give me a scenario for this jerk or jolt?

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 05:23:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2017, 05:19:31 AM

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 04:35:01 AM

scepti, have you heard of "jerk" which is the change in acceleration?

First derivative of position:
Velocity

Second derivative of position:
Acceleration

Third derivative of position:
Jerk

Jerk or jolt.
Can you give me a very simple analogy as to what you class Jerk as.
Just picture yourself driving your car and explain to me what happens when you jerk.


It doesn't sound right, does it? 

Anyway you know what I mean.

No analogy needed. Jerk is the rate of change of acceleration, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, velocity is the rate of change of position.

So you can't actually give me a scenario for this jerk or jolt?

You said analogy first, but a scenario I do have.

When acceleration is constant, jerk is zero.

When velocity is constant, acceleration is zero.

When position is constant,
velocity is zero.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2017, 05:26:06 AM

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 05:23:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2017, 05:19:31 AM

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 04:35:01 AM

scepti, have you heard of "jerk" which is the change in acceleration?

First derivative of position:
Velocity

Second derivative of position:
Acceleration

Third derivative of position:
Jerk

Jerk or jolt.
Can you give me a very simple analogy as to what you class Jerk as.
Just picture yourself driving your car and explain to me what happens when you jerk.


It doesn't sound right, does it? 

Anyway you know what I mean.

No analogy needed. Jerk is the rate of change of acceleration, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, velocity is the rate of change of position.

So you can't actually give me a scenario for this jerk or jolt?

You said analogy first, but a scenario I do have.

When acceleration is constant, jerk is zero.

When velocity is constant, acceleration is zero.

When position is constant,
velocity is zero.

So jerk is just a nonsense word, right?

If not then explain what jerk would be physically when you drive the car, for instance.

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 05:32:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2017, 05:26:06 AM

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 05:23:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2017, 05:19:31 AM

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 04:35:01 AM

scepti, have you heard of "jerk" which is the change in acceleration?

First derivative of position:
Velocity

Second derivative of position:
Acceleration

Third derivative of position:
Jerk

Jerk or jolt.
Can you give me a very simple analogy as to what you class Jerk as.
Just picture yourself driving your car and explain to me what happens when you jerk.


It doesn't sound right, does it? 

Anyway you know what I mean.

No analogy needed. Jerk is the rate of change of acceleration, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, velocity is the rate of change of position.

So you can't actually give me a scenario for this jerk or jolt?

You said analogy first, but a scenario I do have.

When acceleration is constant, jerk is zero.

When velocity is constant, acceleration is zero.

When position is constant,
velocity is zero.

So jerk is just a nonsense word, right?

If not then explain what jerk would be physically when you drive the car, for instance.

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it nonsense. Jerk is a change in acceleration in a unit of time, nothing more. If you need a car analogy, maybe throttle response would be what you're looking for.

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it nonsense. Jerk is a change in acceleration in a unit of time, nothing more. If you need a car analogy, maybe throttle response would be what you're looking for.

Isn't a change in acceleration a deceleration, because surely a change in acceleration cannot be ACCELERATION,c an it?
There would be no change, unless you can clarify what this jerk or jolt is that changes this.

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 05:40:36 AM

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it nonsense. Jerk is a change in acceleration in a unit of time, nothing more. If you need a car analogy, maybe throttle response would be what you're looking for.

Isn't a change in acceleration a deceleration, because surely a change in acceleration cannot be ACCELERATION,c an it?
There would be no change, unless you can clarify what this jerk or jolt is that changes this.

These are all vectors, so deceleration is really just acceleration in the direction opposite the velocity. Just the same as velocity can never really be negative, but it can be in a direction you've assigned as negative.

Velocity is a change of position,
Acceleration is a change of velocity,
Jerk is a change of acceleration

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2017, 07:03:38 AM

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 05:40:36 AM

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it nonsense. Jerk is a change in acceleration in a unit of time, nothing more. If you need a car analogy, maybe throttle response would be what you're looking for.

Isn't a change in acceleration a deceleration, because surely a change in acceleration cannot be ACCELERATION,c an it?
There would be no change, unless you can clarify what this jerk or jolt is that changes this.

These are all vectors, so deceleration is really just acceleration in the direction opposite the velocity. Just the same as velocity can never really be negative, but it can be in a direction you've assigned as negative.

Velocity is a change of position,
Acceleration is a change of velocity,
Jerk is a change of acceleration

The jerk makes no sense at all.

Acceleration is change. It can never ever be constant no matter how it's attempted to be dressed up.

If you go from zero to 10 mph then you've accelerated and some stage to get there, whether you did it in 10 minutes or 10 seconds, you must accelerate to achieve it.
However you do not have to keep acceleration to reach it, you can keep a constant velocity in between acceleration.
You can accelerate to 1 mph and hold that 1 mph for 10 seconds or a minute or whatever but it immediately becomes a constant velocity and not anything else.

As long as you build speed you're accelerating.
If you hold a speed/mph/kmh or m/s or whatever then you are not changing anything in terms of your movement which means you are constant and at a constant velocity.

Acceleration is exactly that. It's one thing that tells you of CHANGE and cannot ever be a constant no matter how it's dressed up, because dressing it up means zilch.

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 12, 2017, 11:23:17 AM

Maybe but I think in his model volume and density don't really change.

For instance, if you have one cubic inch of lead and one cubic inch of pudding.  It appears that they have the same volume but in actuality they don't.

No they don't have the same volume. You're getting yourself muddled up (hopefully by accident).
It's volume and mass, not density of that mass.

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 12, 2017, 11:23:17 AM

  The pudding has atmosphere trapped in it, well both do but the pudding has more.  If you were able to somehow squeeze that atmosphere out, then the volume of the pudding would be revealed to be much smaller.

If the pudding has more then the volume is different.
If you squeezed the atmosphere out then the pudding would show it's real displacing density.
It would end up being massively smaller than the lead and that's their virtually real atmospheric displacement and why they measure a weight much differently.

Isn't that what I said?

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 07:32:50 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2017, 07:03:38 AM

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 05:40:36 AM

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it nonsense. Jerk is a change in acceleration in a unit of time, nothing more. If you need a car analogy, maybe throttle response would be what you're looking for.

Isn't a change in acceleration a deceleration, because surely a change in acceleration cannot be ACCELERATION,c an it?
There would be no change, unless you can clarify what this jerk or jolt is that changes this.

These are all vectors, so deceleration is really just acceleration in the direction opposite the velocity. Just the same as velocity can never really be negative, but it can be in a direction you've assigned as negative.

Velocity is a change of position,
Acceleration is a change of velocity,
Jerk is a change of acceleration

The jerk makes no sense at all.

Acceleration is change. It can never ever be constant no matter how it's attempted to be dressed up.

If you go from zero to 10 mph then you've accelerated and some stage to get there, whether you did it in 10 minutes or 10 seconds, you must accelerate to achieve it.
However you do not have to keep acceleration to reach it, you can keep a constant velocity in between acceleration.
You can accelerate to 1 mph and hold that 1 mph for 10 seconds or a minute or whatever but it immediately becomes a constant velocity and not anything else.

As long as you build speed you're accelerating.
If you hold a speed/mph/kmh or m/s or whatever then you are not changing anything in terms of your movement which means you are constant and at a constant velocity.

Acceleration is exactly that. It's one thing that tells you of CHANGE and cannot ever be a constant no matter how it's dressed up, because dressing it up means zilch.

Velocity        is the change OF POSITION
Acceleration  is the change OF VELOCITY
Jerk              is the change OF ACCELERATION

See how each one describes the one before?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2017, 01:24:49 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 12, 2017, 11:23:17 AM

Maybe but I think in his model volume and density don't really change.

For instance, if you have one cubic inch of lead and one cubic inch of pudding.  It appears that they have the same volume but in actuality they don't.

No they don't have the same volume. You're getting yourself muddled up (hopefully by accident).
It's volume and mass, not density of that mass.

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 12, 2017, 11:23:17 AM

  The pudding has atmosphere trapped in it, well both do but the pudding has more.  If you were able to somehow squeeze that atmosphere out, then the volume of the pudding would be revealed to be much smaller.

If the pudding has more then the volume is different.
If you squeezed the atmosphere out then the pudding would show it's real displacing density.
It would end up being massively smaller than the lead and that's their virtually real atmospheric displacement and why they measure a weight much differently.

Isn't that what I said?

No it's not.
Read what you said.
You are trying to say that I think a cubic inch of lead is the same volume as a cubic inch of pudding and I do not.

Think about what you're saying.

Velocity        is the change OF POSITION
Acceleration  is the change OF VELOCITY
Jerk              is the change OF ACCELERATION

See how each one describes the one before?

It doesn't matter what you say about one describing the other.

Jerk means nothing unless you tell me what Jerk is supposed to be doing to change acceleration.

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 08:09:04 AM

Velocity        is the change OF POSITION
Acceleration  is the change OF VELOCITY
Jerk              is the change OF ACCELERATION

See how each one describes the one before?

It doesn't matter what you say about one describing the other.

Jerk means nothing unless you tell me what Jerk is supposed to be doing to change acceleration.

This is where you go wrong. You assume that because you don't understand jerk, that it has no meaning. I'll try to help you understand it, because I truly want you to see.

Going back to the analogy about throttle response:
The jerk would be how quickly the the throttle opens, and how quickly that fuel gets into the engine. At the instant you press the pedal to the floor, there is some delay before the car accelerates. During this delay, the acceleration increases, and is the jerk.

In si units:
Position (m)
Velocity (m/s)
Acceleration (m/s/s, or m/s^2)
Jerk (m/s/s/s, or m/s^3)

Another question:
Do you understand the concept of a derivative?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2017, 09:03:24 AM

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 08:09:04 AM

Velocity        is the change OF POSITION
Acceleration  is the change OF VELOCITY
Jerk              is the change OF ACCELERATION

See how each one describes the one before?

It doesn't matter what you say about one describing the other.

Jerk means nothing unless you tell me what Jerk is supposed to be doing to change acceleration.

This is where you go wrong. You assume that because you don't understand jerk, that it has no meaning. I'll try to help you understand it, because I truly want you to see.

Going back to the analogy about throttle response:
The jerk would be how quickly the the throttle opens, and how quickly that fuel gets into the engine. At the instant you press the pedal to the floor, there is some delay before the car accelerates. During this delay, the acceleration increases, and is the jerk.

In si units:
Position (m)
Velocity (m/s)
Acceleration (m/s/s, or m/s^2)
Jerk (m/s/s/s, or m/s^3)

Another question:
Do you understand the concept of a derivative?

Yeah I thought that. I was just waiting for you to come out with it, which is why I prompted you with the "jolt"...

Now try and get what I'm saying.
In order for you to get the jerk or jolt you yourself have said that the car ceases to accelerate, because there is a delay.
This delay is the end of acceleration for that part of the movement and that pause is deceleration until acceleration is once again attained, no matter how much of a kick arse it happens.
Acceleration is acceleration whether it's a build up by 1mph or by 1mps..

This is what you need to understand.

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 09:16:19 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2017, 09:03:24 AM

Quote from: defender_of_truth on December 13, 2017, 08:09:04 AM

Velocity        is the change OF POSITION
Acceleration  is the change OF VELOCITY
Jerk              is the change OF ACCELERATION

See how each one describes the one before?

It doesn't matter what you say about one describing the other.

Jerk means nothing unless you tell me what Jerk is supposed to be doing to change acceleration.

This is where you go wrong. You assume that because you don't understand jerk, that it has no meaning. I'll try to help you understand it, because I truly want you to see.

Going back to the analogy about throttle response:
The jerk would be how quickly the the throttle opens, and how quickly that fuel gets into the engine. At the instant you press the pedal to the floor, there is some delay before the car accelerates. During this delay, the acceleration increases, and is the jerk.

In si units:
Position (m)
Velocity (m/s)
Acceleration (m/s/s, or m/s^2)
Jerk (m/s/s/s, or m/s^3)

Another question:
Do you understand the concept of a derivative?

Yeah I thought that. I was just waiting for you to come out with it, which is why I prompted you with the "jolt"...

Now try and get what I'm saying.
In order for you to get the jerk or jolt you yourself have said that the car ceases to accelerate, because there is a delay.
This delay is the end of acceleration for that part of the movement and that pause is deceleration until acceleration is once again attained, no matter how much of a kick arse it happens.
Acceleration is acceleration whether it's a build up by 1mph or by 1mps..

This is what you need to understand.

Your ego blinds you to the point where you cannot even understand acceleration.

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 13, 2017, 07:52:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 13, 2017, 01:24:49 AM

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 12, 2017, 11:23:17 AM

Maybe but I think in his model volume and density don't really change.

For instance, if you have one cubic inch of lead and one cubic inch of pudding.  It appears that they have the same volume but in actuality they don't.

No they don't have the same volume. You're getting yourself muddled up (hopefully by accident).
It's volume and mass, not density of that mass.

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 12, 2017, 11:23:17 AM

  The pudding has atmosphere trapped in it, well both do but the pudding has more.  If you were able to somehow squeeze that atmosphere out, then the volume of the pudding would be revealed to be much smaller.

If the pudding has more then the volume is different.
If you squeezed the atmosphere out then the pudding would show it's real displacing density.
It would end up being massively smaller than the lead and that's their virtually real atmospheric displacement and why they measure a weight much differently.

Isn't that what I said?

No it's not.
Read what you said.
You are trying to say that I think a cubic inch of lead is the same volume as a cubic inch of pudding and I do not.

Think about what you're saying.

No, that's not what I said.  I said they appear to be the same volume but once you squeeze the atmosphere out of the pudding it's volume would be a lot less. 

Can you give me a very simple analogy as to what you class Jerk as.
Just picture yourself driving your car and explain to me what happens when you jerk.

A train or bus would be nicer, more room to move.
Say you are standing in a train or bus, and suddenly it jerks forward, that is it begins to accelerate, going from no acceleration to a significant one.
This results in you feeling like you are falling backwards as your feet jerk forward while the rest of you remains.
But while accelerating, you can then stabilise yourself.

It doesn't sound right, does it? 

Nope, it sounds fine.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 13, 2017, 02:21:22 AM

you don't give a damn if your model works and matches reality, you will just ignore the problems.

It doesn't have any problems and certainly none that you can bring up when you have no clue what you're arguing against.

Here is the list again:
Why denspressure creates weight in the first place, specifically the directionality of it.
Why some things are pushed down and others are pushed up.
Why weight is proportional to mass (which can be measured due to inertia), rather than area or volume.
Why objects with the same crystal lattice (e.g. FCC) and thus the same proportion of voids have completely different densities.
Why evacuating the air from inside a sealed vessel makes it weigh less even though it displaces more atmosphere.
Why putting things in water results in a reduction in weight not a gain.
Why you aren't pushed against a cliff.
Why you continue moving when force is no longer applied (including your example where you are moving up a slope at a constant speed).
Why inertia and by extension the centrifugal force still works in a vacuum.
Why your acceleration in free fall (i.e. when air resistance is insignificant) remains the same regardless of pressure.
Why your weight, excluding the small contribution from buoyancy, remains the same regardless of pressure.
How a fluid filled barometer works.
Why the void appears in the first place when you invert the tube so it is upright, while it is not there when it is upside down.
Why the height of the column above the surface of the reservoir remains constant, regardless of the angle of the tube and the height of the tube, assuming it started upside down with no void and has a material of a given density and no air was allowed in and the tube itself is not limiting the height. It doesn't even depend on the shape of the tube.
Why a different fluid results in a completely different height.
Why a liquid to gas phase transition requires so much energy input without any change in temperature and results in a massive expansion.
Brownian motion.
PV=nRT

Sure seems like a lot of problems.
You are yet to rationally address any of them.
At best you offer a few contradictory "explanations".

Isn't a change in acceleration a deceleration, because surely a change in acceleration cannot be ACCELERATION,c an it?

No, a change in acceleration would be jerk.
Deceleration is just another word for acceleration, typically used when you are limited to 1D, and the aceleration is negative or in opposite direction to  motion, used in place of retardation.

Acceleration is change. It can never ever be constant no matter how it's attempted to be dressed up.

We have been through this before.
You have admitted change can be constant, as velocity is change, yet that can be constant.
You need a better excuse than that.

Acceleration, just like velocity, is a rate.
That can be constant.
This is a fact, no matter how much you try and lie about it or dress it up.

If you go from zero to 10 mph then you've accelerated and some stage to get there, whether you did it in 10 minutes or 10 seconds, you must accelerate to achieve it.

Yes, that is true, now lets say it took 10 s.
After the first second you were travelling at 1 mph, after the second you were travelling at 2 mph, and so on.
This means your rate of acceleration was constant at 1 mph/s.

However you do not have to keep acceleration to reach it, you can keep a constant velocity in between acceleration.

Yes you do.
If you stop accelerating before you reach it you wont reach it.
The only way to reach 10 mph is to accelerate to 10 mph.

You can accelerate to 1 mph and hold that 1 mph for 10 seconds or a minute or whatever but it immediately becomes a constant velocity and not anything else.

And that constant velocity is merely changing position at a constant rate.

If you hold a speed/mph/kmh or m/s or whatever then you are not changing anything in terms of your movement

Again, you are. You are changing your position.

Wow. How are we having this discussion again.

Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. If velocity changes by the same amount each second then acceleration is constant. If velocity changes by an increasing amount each second then acceleration is not constant.

No acceleration:

m/s
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

Constant acceleration:

vel.   Acc.
m/s   m/s/s
5
6       1
7       1
8       1
9       1
10     1

Changing acceleration (constant jerk):

Vel.   Acc.     Jerk
m/s   m/s/s   m/s/s/s
5
6       1
8       2         1
11     3         1
15     4         1
20     5         1

See the difference.......

FYI

Jerk is used by designers of roller coasters. It is the change in acceleration that gives you the buzz of adrenaline on rides like this.