# I said

1. Sep 12, 2004

### sexwish

There cannot be function dependent on time alone that will result with meters. No x=f(t). It is x=f(V,t)=Vt.

Don't you delete this message because it is meaningfull...

2. Sep 12, 2004

### sexwish

3. Sep 12, 2004

### matt grime

Suggest you look up the definition of function. Displacement can (and often is) a function of time alone, otherwise one would not be able to get velocity as the rate of change of displacement with respect to time.

4. Sep 12, 2004

### HallsofIvy

The function x= 10m/s t where t is in seconds, is, in fact, a function of t only. Yes, the "10 m/s" is a velocity but since it is a constant, x is not a "function" of velocity.

In any case, the concept of "function" is a mathematical one, not a physics concept. When you are putting units of measurement in, you are talking about an application of mathematics, not the mathematics itself.

5. Sep 12, 2004

### marlon

This is untrue man.

For example : t * e_x + tÂ² * e_y (the e_x and e_y are just the basis-vektors denoting the components in the x and y direction)

This is a function dependent on time but it yields a position. It just expresses what the position is after a certain amount of time.

I think you are looking at the concept of "function" in the wrong way

regards
marlon

6. Sep 12, 2004

### Galileo

Sexwish, I read your former post and it was deleted with good reason.
Your remark will NOT revolutionize physics. It's pretty arrogant to think it would.

Next time you encounter something that doesn't seem right. Ask your professor (or post to this form) that you don't understand it and ask for an explanation instead of claiming physics is wrong.
Learn some humility, unless you want appear as a crackpot.