Register to reply

Constant Acceleration Equation - physicist please!

Share this thread:
Gregor
#73
Mar12-06, 07:12 PM
P: 39
But then N,Z, and I have NOTHING to do AT ALL with gravity, time or distance, and therefore you CAN NOT use\relate it in terms of those variables.
true,

however this is just a conversion formula

But then N,Z, and I have NOTHING to do AT ALL with gravity, time or distance, and therefore you CAN NOT use\relate it in terms of those variables.
yes, the units must always be consistent throughout the expression,

in my demonstrations I've used prefixed units for simplicity,
however these units are consistant throughout each expression
Cyrus
#74
Mar12-06, 07:14 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
however this is just a conversion formula
Yes, it is a conversion formula for N, Z and I (Whatever N, Z and I are), PROVIDED that they follow the relationship N = Z*I²

g, m, and s DO NOT FOLLOW THE RELATIONSHIP g= a*s²

How many times do I have to tell you that?
Gregor
#75
Mar12-06, 07:17 PM
P: 39
You are trying to go to the local drug store by going all the way around the beltway.
I think this would be a very funny analogy, if only I understood what it meant

I should tell you that English is not my first language (ich bin Deutscher)
so sometimes things get lost in the translation %-/

I know a drug store is what we call an Apotheke
Cyrus
#76
Mar12-06, 07:18 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
That was not for you, that was for Vey2000, and it was not supposed to be funny.
Gregor
#77
Mar12-06, 07:23 PM
P: 39
g, m, and s DO NOT FOLLOW THE RELATIONSHIP g= a*sē

How many times do I have to tell you that?
I realize this

the only importance for the formula is that it produces the correct numerical value for 1 g in revised units

and the forumula does this perfectly
as I have demonstrated several times

(to the annoyance of every physicist in the forums)
Cyrus
#78
Mar12-06, 07:33 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
the only importance for the formula is that it produces the correct numerical value for 1 g in revised units
Dammit, NO!, it does not.
You do NOT realize it.

Look, 3 + 2 = 5 right?

does 3(apples) + 2(oranges) = 5 (apples)

No. Do you see my point? The math is right, the logic is WRONG!
Gregor
#79
Mar12-06, 08:05 PM
P: 39
No. Do you see my point? The math is right, the logic is WRONG!
I see you're getting angry now :-(

yes, I've seen the point all along

however it's my point that is being missed

9.80665 (Z) * 0.001 (I) * 0.001 (I) = 0.00000980665 (N)

there are no apples, oranges, or any physical entities here
just numbers to be computed.

the result (N) just happens to be equal to g when m = 1 meter
and s = 0.001 second

the result is always "numerically equal" to g

it's just a convenient coincidence that the formula provides the correct numeric value, there is no direct connexion to physical dimensions involved.
Cyrus
#80
Mar12-06, 08:15 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
the result is always "numerically equal" to g
Ok, fine, SO WHAT? What good does it do if you lucked out and got the same numerical value, but your units are completely WRONG?
Gregor
#81
Mar12-06, 08:53 PM
P: 39
how are they wrong?

the only difference between

9.80665 * 0.001 * 0.001 = 0.00000980665

and

9.80665 m * 0.001 s * 0.001 s = 0.00000980665 m/0.001 s/0.001s

is that the units are added in the last expression

this does not make them "wrong", but simply "included" or "not included".

the value for g is correct for these units none-the-less

since 1 g does = 0.00000980665 m/0.001 s/0.001s
Cyrus
#82
Mar12-06, 09:11 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Dammit are you blind?

9.80665 m * 0.001 s * 0.001 s = 0.00000980665 m/0.001 s/0.001s

does [tex] ms^2 = \frac{m} {s^2}[/tex] to you?
Vey2000
#83
Mar13-06, 07:55 AM
P: 9
Quote Quote by cyrusabdollahi
You are trying to go to the local drug store by going all the way around the beltway.
I'm aware of that -- I said so myself: "...this is getting needlessly out of the way." However, it's my biased opinion as a student that if you can't see the proper way, the beltway is better than no way. You can't build up a mathematical intuition for how to get from A to B quickly if you don't know how to get from A to B at all.

Unfortunately, it may be the case that despite taking the beltway I still got nowhere since Gregor is still confused.

Quote Quote by Gregor
how are they wrong?

the only difference between

9.80665 * 0.001 * 0.001 = 0.00000980665

and

9.80665 m * 0.001 s * 0.001 s = 0.00000980665 m/0.001 s/0.001s

is that the units are added in the last expression
No, there is another difference, ignoring the the fact that the dimensions are wrong -- the right hand side of the second "equality" (it's not equal at all) has two additional divisors that are not in the right hand side of the first equality.

Allow me to take a stab at "fixing" your first equation. What you really have is the following:

9.8 m/s^2 * 0.001 (s/s') * 0.001 (s/s') = 9.8x10^-6 m/s'^2

Notice how there are indeed units in there? Notice how s cancels out with s in the left hand side and you are left with s' instead?

Now I'll take a stab at interpreting your second "equation." The two "0.001 s" divisors are in fact the new s' units. Replace it in the right hand side of my proposed equation and you'll recover the right hand side of your second "equation."

So the problem clearly lies in the left hand side. What you are doing by multiplying on the left side by "time" is actually in fact multiplying by the time unit conversion factors -- 0.001 s/s'. This relates to my previous post where I went out of my way to explicitly show you the conversion factors as variables.

The other problem is that on the left hand side you have "assigned" 9.8 the unit of m, whereas it is m/s^2.

So, your "formula" is g' = g * T'^2, where g' is just g in the new units of m/s'^2, and T' is the conversion factor with units of s/s'. -This- is mathematically consistent.

You have to realize that just because things work out in your mind does not mean that what comes out into paper works out the way you write it. As I said, in my opinion the problem was one of definitions.
Doc Al
#84
Mar13-06, 08:15 AM
Mentor
Doc Al's Avatar
P: 41,293
I think we've given this inane thread way more time than it deserved.

Closed.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Engineer -> Experimental Physicist -> Theoretical Physicist General Discussion 27
Equation of Kinematics for Constant Acceleration Introductory Physics Homework 3
Physicist to Present New Exact Solution of Einstein's Gravitational Field Equation General Discussion 6
Constant velocity or at constant acceleration General Physics 3