Change in a change in acceleration

Thread starter Mk
Start date Jan 28, 2005
Tags

Acceleration Change

AI Thread Summary

A change in speed is defined as acceleration, while a change in acceleration is referred to as jerk. The discussion humorously explores the terminology further, identifying a change in jerk as "snap," followed by "crackle" for the change in snap, and "pop" for the change in crackle. However, there is skepticism regarding the mainstream acceptance of these terms. The conversation highlights the playful nature of discussing physics concepts, while also questioning the validity of such terminology. Overall, the thread blends humor with a light-hearted examination of physics terminology.

Jan 28, 2005

If a change in speed is acceleration, and a change in acceleration is a jerk, what's a change in a jerk? A jerk?

Physics news on Phys.org

Jan 28, 2005

Galileo

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

The change in 'jerk' is 'snap' and the change in 'snap' is 'crackle', whose change is 'pop'.

I don't think this is mainstream terminology though...

Jan 28, 2005

Are you serious?

Jan 28, 2005

Galileo

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/jerk.html

Jan 28, 2005

cepheid

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

Mk said:

Are you serious?

I really hope not...

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces not real just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...

View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

View full post »