| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Don1" |
| Date: |
18 Aug 2005 11:30:57 AM |
| Object: |
Three phases of acceleration |
There are three phases of acceleration:
1) Acceleration is positive
2) Deceleration is negative
3) Rest is the balance; between positive and negative: Like a body
being restrained.
All acceleration is due to one or more forces; acting during time.
Don
.
|
|
| User: "GeekBoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Theory of acceleration |
19 Aug 2005 01:31:58 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1124382657.181327.293210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There is a theory of acceleration:
Speed- How far an object will travel in a certain amount of time
Velocity - This tells us both the speed and direction.
Acceleration - If an objects velocity is changing in anyway.
Read, learn, remember .
1) Acceleration is positive
2) Deceleration is negative
3) Rest is the balance; between positive and negative: Like a body
being restrained.
All acceleration is due to one or more forces; acting during time.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
18 Aug 2005 11:33:00 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1124382657.181327.293210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There are three phases of acceleration:
You've surpassed yourself this time.
sr
1) Acceleration is positive
2) Deceleration is negative
3) Rest is the balance; between positive and negative: Like a body
being restrained.
All acceleration is due to one or more forces; acting during time.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "pete" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
18 Aug 2005 01:49:49 PM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
There are three phases of acceleration:
1) Acceleration is positive
2) Deceleration is negative
3) Rest is the balance; between positive and negative: Like a body
being restrained.
All acceleration is due to one or more forces; acting during time.
Where does the condition of constant velocity
fit in to your cosmology?
--
pete
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
18 Aug 2005 07:49:54 PM |
|
|
pete wrote:
Don1 wrote:
There are three phases of acceleration:
1) Acceleration is positive
2) Deceleration is negative
3) Rest is the balance; between positive and negative: Like a body
being restrained.
All acceleration is due to one or more forces; acting during time.
Where does the condition of constant velocity
fit in to your cosmology?
When a body is held to the surface of a massive planet.
Don
--
pete
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
18 Aug 2005 11:49:44 AM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
There are three phases of acceleration:
1) Acceleration is positive
2) Deceleration is negative
3) Rest is the balance; between positive and negative: Like a body
being restrained.
All acceleration is due to one or more forces; acting during time.
Don
You are f...ed in the head Shead... Acceleration is defined as
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Acceleration.html
a = dv/dt = d^2r/dt^2
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table has *zero* net force
acting on it (from the frame of the kitchen) for you can plug in
the numbers to
F = ma
0 = m*0
No acceleration!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
18 Aug 2005 07:46:14 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
There are three phases of acceleration:
1) Acceleration is positive
2) Deceleration is negative
3) Rest is the balance; between positive and negative: Like a body
being restrained.
All acceleration is due to one or more forces; acting during time.
Don
You are f...ed in the head Shead... Acceleration is defined as
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Acceleration.html
a = dv/dt = d^2r/dt^2
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table has *zero* net force
acting on it (from the frame of the kitchen) for you can plug in
the numbers to
F = ma
No Sam, 0 = ma ---> a = 0 ---> v - v0 = 0 ( by integration, if you ever
have done one) but v0 = 0 ---> v = 0, i.e the body is at rest.
0 = m*0
Good work Sam. I wonder if Dirt Van der Looten will be fair enough to
place your answer in infamous Pandora's box. You impecile, if you
continue you will derive the Lorentz transform. Hahahahahahahahah
Mike
No acceleration!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
18 Aug 2005 12:31:48 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Snip<
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table has *zero* net force
acting on it (from the frame of the kitchen) for you can plug in
the numbers to
F = ma
0 = m*0
No acceleration!
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table is being restrained from
falling by the table, and is therefore being decelerated by the upward
force exerted by the table.
a = (vt-vi)/2t = 2s/t^2
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darkwing \Double Secret Disinformation Agent\ theducksmailATyahoo.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
18 Aug 2005 12:38:15 PM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1124386308.393713.211180@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley wrote:
Snip<
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table has *zero* net force
acting on it (from the frame of the kitchen) for you can plug in
the numbers to
F = ma
0 = m*0
No acceleration!
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table is being restrained from
falling by the table, and is therefore being decelerated by the upward
force exerted by the table.
a = (vt-vi)/2t = 2s/t^2
Don
Acceleration requires movement in reference to something.
-------------------------------------------
DW
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
18 Aug 2005 12:36:55 PM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Snip<
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table has *zero* net force
acting on it (from the frame of the kitchen) for you can plug in
the numbers to
F = ma
0 = m*0
No acceleration!
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table is being restrained from
falling by the table, and is therefore being decelerated by the upward
force exerted by the table.
a = (vt-vi)/2t = 2s/t^2
Don
The word "deceleration" would mean that dv/dt is not zero. That is
clearly not the case. dv/dt = 0 for the block on the kitchen table.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
18 Aug 2005 01:20:01 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Snip<
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table has *zero* net force
acting on it (from the frame of the kitchen) for you can plug in
the numbers to
F = ma
0 = m*0
No acceleration!
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table is being restrained from
falling by the table, and is therefore being decelerated by the upward
force exerted by the table.
a = (vt-vi)/2t = 2s/t^2
Don
The word "deceleration" would mean that dv/dt is not zero. That is
clearly not the case. dv/dt = 0 for the block on the kitchen table.
Why? Aren't the words acceleration and deceleration relative?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
18 Aug 2005 01:25:48 PM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Snip<
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table has *zero* net force
acting on it (from the frame of the kitchen) for you can plug in
the numbers to
F = ma
0 = m*0
No acceleration!
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table is being restrained from
falling by the table, and is therefore being decelerated by the upward
force exerted by the table.
a = (vt-vi)/2t = 2s/t^2
Don
The word "deceleration" would mean that dv/dt is not zero. That is
clearly not the case. dv/dt = 0 for the block on the kitchen table.
Why? Aren't the words acceleration and deceleration relative?
Don
Isn't _all_ "motion" relative; depending on the orientation and motion
of the observers?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
18 Aug 2005 04:12:02 PM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Snip<
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table has *zero* net force
acting on it (from the frame of the kitchen) for you can plug in
the numbers to
F = ma
0 = m*0
No acceleration!
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table is being restrained from
falling by the table, and is therefore being decelerated by the upward
force exerted by the table.
a = (vt-vi)/2t = 2s/t^2
Don
The word "deceleration" would mean that dv/dt is not zero. That is
clearly not the case. dv/dt = 0 for the block on the kitchen table.
Why? Aren't the words acceleration and deceleration relative?
Don
Isn't _all_ "motion" relative; depending on the orientation and motion
of the observers?
Nope. All *constant* motion (velocity is not changing) is relative,
depending on the motion of the observers. Acceleration is a *change* in
motion, and all inertial observers will observe the *same change* in
motion, regardless of the motion of the observers.
PD
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
18 Aug 2005 07:43:00 PM |
|
|
No. Moving through space is an absolute.
If I move *through space* toward something
stop and reverse my course that isn't a relative
change
Einstein went to far. Its the same with modern physics
You think were at the end of physics?
Ask that question to science in a hundred thousand years!
.
|
|
|
| User: "operator jay" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
18 Aug 2005 09:55:16 PM |
|
|
<macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote in message
news:1124412180.632668.167070@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No. Moving through space is an absolute.
If I move *through space* toward something
stop and reverse my course that isn't a relative
change
Einstein went to far. Its the same with modern physics
You think were at the end of physics?
Ask that question to science in a hundred thousand years!
You're going to have to remind me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
18 Aug 2005 07:37:54 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Snip<
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table has *zero* net force
acting on it (from the frame of the kitchen) for you can plug in
the numbers to
F = ma
0 = m*0
No acceleration!
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table is being restrained from
falling by the table, and is therefore being decelerated by the upward
force exerted by the table.
a = (vt-vi)/2t = 2s/t^2
Don
The word "deceleration" would mean that dv/dt is not zero. That is
clearly not the case. dv/dt = 0 for the block on the kitchen table.
Why? Aren't the words acceleration and deceleration relative?
Don
Isn't _all_ "motion" relative; depending on the orientation and motion
of the observers?
Nope. All *constant* motion (velocity is not changing) is relative,
depending on the motion of the observers. Acceleration is a *change* in
motion, and all inertial observers will observe the *same change* in
motion, regardless of the motion of the observers.
Nope, dope; to a free falling observer a body resting on the ground is
accelerating upward; its velocity constantly changing.
Don
PD
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
19 Aug 2005 08:51:39 AM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
PD wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Snip<
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table has *zero* net force
acting on it (from the frame of the kitchen) for you can plug in
the numbers to
F = ma
0 = m*0
No acceleration!
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table is being restrained from
falling by the table, and is therefore being decelerated by the upward
force exerted by the table.
a = (vt-vi)/2t = 2s/t^2
Don
The word "deceleration" would mean that dv/dt is not zero. That is
clearly not the case. dv/dt = 0 for the block on the kitchen table.
Why? Aren't the words acceleration and deceleration relative?
Don
Isn't _all_ "motion" relative; depending on the orientation and motion
of the observers?
Nope. All *constant* motion (velocity is not changing) is relative,
depending on the motion of the observers. Acceleration is a *change* in
motion, and all inertial observers will observe the *same change* in
motion, regardless of the motion of the observers.
Nope, dope; to a free falling observer a body resting on the ground is
accelerating upward; its velocity constantly changing.
The free-falling observer is not an inertial observer.
Don
PD
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of accelerationexit |
19 Aug 2005 12:53:02 PM |
|
|
In article <1124459499.826935.11440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> writes:
The free-falling observer is not an inertial observer.
That depends, of course, on whether you're modelling gravity as
a Newtonian attraction between bodies or as a relativistic curvature of
space-time.
Either way, the free falling observer is in a locally inertial frame.
According to G.R., that's about as good as it gets.
John Briggs
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of accelerationexit |
19 Aug 2005 04:57:35 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1124459499.826935.11440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> writes:
The free-falling observer is not an inertial observer.
That depends, of course, on whether you're modelling gravity as
a Newtonian attraction between bodies or as a relativistic curvature of
space-time.
Either way, the free falling observer is in a locally inertial frame.
According to G.R., that's about as good as it gets.
John Briggs
"Locally inertial" obviates the case that Don was bringing up (the
surface of the earth is accelerating toward you). Newtonian attraction
obviates application of a Newtonian 1st law, at least in free-fall.
I'm focusing on Don's understanding of the 1st law.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of accelerationexit |
20 Aug 2005 04:56:04 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1124497003.184102.228540@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| PD wrote:
| > wrote:
| > > In article <1124459499.826935.11440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> writes:
| > > > The free-falling observer is not an inertial observer.
| > >
| > > That depends, of course, on whether you're modelling gravity as
| > > a Newtonian attraction between bodies or as a relativistic
curvature of
| > > space-time.
| > >
| > > Either way, the free falling observer is in a locally inertial
frame.
| > > According to G.R., that's about as good as it gets.
| > >
| > > John Briggs
| >
| > "Locally inertial" obviates the case that Don was bringing up (the
| > surface of the earth is accelerating toward you). Newtonian
attraction
| > obviates application of a Newtonian 1st law, at least in free-fall.
| >
| > I'm focusing on Don's understanding of the 1st law.
|
| Where can you find an application of the first law, other than in
| imagination?
| >
| Don
Haven't you yet realized that Phuckwit Dunce is a troll?
Draper:
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or
drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
PD
Phuckwit Dunce cannot abide by his own rules.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of accelerationexit |
20 Aug 2005 04:59:29 AM |
|
|
Mr. Thorn-puller -outer - I'm a newbie. What a "troll"?????
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of accelerationexit |
20 Aug 2005 05:06:14 AM |
|
|
I Have a Limousin bull that would like to ***** the ***** outta you,
"Androcles" you cocksucking foul-mouthed fucking piece of *****, Mother
Fucker.. *****. Cumsucker. ***** your cocksucking foul mouth.
Meanie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of accelerationexit |
20 Aug 2005 05:07:24 AM |
|
|
And you have vulger handwriting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of accelerationexit |
20 Aug 2005 05:14:21 AM |
|
|
I'm going to get General cartwright there under Cheyenne to start WW
III just to punish your foul-mouthed cocksuck ***** and retrun sc,.prhics
to decent folks. Why dont typu graduate and go ut into the world you
goddanm fuckhad and do some good for the world you mother fucker like
chop weeds in a COrnfied rather than stay on the newsgrups 24/7 and
waste your fucking ***** life you *****-eating pice of fucking physics
scum you mother fucker so you think it's cool to type out filty words
you you you Mother fucker your mother fucker your mother fucker. Oh,
hi, president Bush I was jsut sitting here writing tomy friend the Thrn
puller - OH NO GENERAL CARTWRIGHT'S DONE IT YOULL BE DEAD IN 20 MINTES
ANDROCLES AND ALL OF YOUR ***** BUDDIES.
HAVE A NICE DAY.
i LOVE EWES.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of accelerationexit |
20 Aug 2005 05:15:44 AM |
|
|
I love you, Andocles. Are ewe dating anyone????????
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of accelerationexit |
20 Aug 2005 05:17:28 AM |
|
|
Catharsis is good for the soul. Darlene, another grape, please????????
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of accelerationexit |
20 Aug 2005 05:25:22 AM |
|
|
I'm sorry about all that -----I really am. I was having a bad
nanosecond - it will never happen again. I guess it was just seeing
you college fucks spend endless hours taking shits on each other's
fucking heads that made me snap ----- ruining sci.physics as any sort
of useful dialectic tool. I'm so sorrry. i was meaning to work my way
into your uselss little cut-down fraternity and.....oh, Don, screw
this. let the Mother-Fuckers tear at each other through the end of
time. Who gives a *****? It's their fitting punishment. Off to the
land of everlasting pecans. i love you all. Go screw yourselves.
_ A Rod Serling production, in assn with
"Everyone on Earth dies due to fossil fuel depetion"
Have a nice day, assholes. You Mother Fuckers deserve each other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of accelerationexit |
20 Aug 2005 05:26:40 AM |
|
|
I love you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of accelerationexit |
20 Aug 2005 04:14:22 PM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
PD wrote:
briggs@encompasserve.org wrote:
In article <1124459499.826935.11440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> writes:
The free-falling observer is not an inertial observer.
That depends, of course, on whether you're modelling gravity as
a Newtonian attraction between bodies or as a relativistic curvature of
space-time.
Either way, the free falling observer is in a locally inertial frame.
According to G.R., that's about as good as it gets.
John Briggs
"Locally inertial" obviates the case that Don was bringing up (the
surface of the earth is accelerating toward you). Newtonian attraction
obviates application of a Newtonian 1st law, at least in free-fall.
I'm focusing on Don's understanding of the 1st law.
Where can you find an application of the first law, other than in
imagination?
Don
PD
Ignoring the small imbalance due to the rotation and revolution of the
Earth, a coffee cup sitting on a coffee table.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
19 Aug 2005 01:00:51 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Don1 wrote:
PD wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Don1 wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Snip<
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table has *zero* net force
acting on it (from the frame of the kitchen) for you can plug in
the numbers to
F = ma
0 = m*0
No acceleration!
A block of wood sitting on a kitchen table is being restrained from
falling by the table, and is therefore being decelerated by the upward
force exerted by the table.
a = (vt-vi)/2t = 2s/t^2
Don
The word "deceleration" would mean that dv/dt is not zero. That is
clearly not the case. dv/dt = 0 for the block on the kitchen table.
Why? Aren't the words acceleration and deceleration relative?
Don
Isn't _all_ "motion" relative; depending on the orientation and motion
of the observers?
Nope. All *constant* motion (velocity is not changing) is relative,
depending on the motion of the observers. Acceleration is a *change* in
motion, and all inertial observers will observe the *same change* in
motion, regardless of the motion of the observers.
Nope, dope; to a free falling observer a body resting on the ground is
accelerating upward; its velocity constantly changing.
The free-falling observer is not an inertial observer.
That's debatable.
Don
Don
PD
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Three phases of acceleration |
19 Aug 2005 02:18:59 PM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
That's [weather free-falling observer represents an inertial frame] is debatable.
So Donald Shead--is or isn't a free-falling observer an inertial frame?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
