Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #885701

Re: Acceleration's higher orders

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 03/09/2024 11:44 PM, Ismael Balazowsky Homutov wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>> On 03/09/2024 12:37 PM, Ramiro Juárez wrote:
>>> gharnagel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Volney wrote:
>>>>> For what it's worth, some higher derivatives have (somewhat
>>>>> whimsical)
>>>>> names. The derivative of acceleration with respect to time is called
>>>>> jerk, the derivative of jerk is called snap or jounce, the derivative
>>>>> of snap is crackle, the derivative of crackle is pop. Someone was a
>>>>> breakfast cereal fan. The highest derivative I know of that's
>>>>> actually used is snap, when designing the transition of roads or
>>>>> railroads from straight to a curve they try to minimize the 'snap' of
>>>>> a vehicle following the transition segment.
>>>>
>>>> I'd heard of jerk.  Many years ago, Norman Dean "invented" the Dean
>>>> drive, a system of rotating masses with the center of rotation of the
>>>> masses being moved at particular times in the rotation cycle.  He
>>>> showed that the weight of the assembly was decreased when running - on
>>>> a bathroom scales.
>>>
>>> my friend, heard?? It's enough to push body on a line with a forcemeter
>>> on it. You get the slope for the jerk since the acceleration is not
>>> constant.
>>> Ohh my, heard of. And you want to speed higher than light, do you. Are
>>> we from amrica??
>>
>> What you get is that scales, measure deflection, in the system, while
>> balances, measure not deflection, according to references.
>> Physics is an open and closed system.
>
> whatever you say it's completely nonsense. Pushing an object on a line,
> and bouncing back repeatedly, makes acceleration NOT constant, me friendo.
> Plotting the data shows the jerk directly and no debate. You relativists
> around here, beyond arduino, have no laboratory experience whatsoever in
> physics. All you know is Einstine, a lower than mediocre highschool
> student.
>


Hey now, we're talking about f = ma, and about the infinitely-many
higher-order derivatives of velocity, and meters/second and
seconds/meter, that it is possible to have constant velocity,
constant rest for that matter, constant acceleration and so on,
but to get there it goes from zero to one, each higher order
contribution going from 0 to 1 and back to 0 again, with regards
to acceleration and deceleration, starting and stopping, and
parting and meeting, all the objects in their ephemerides each
other, in a world where all the orbits add up to the geodesy's
world-lines, according to a theory of sum potentials, where
all the real fields are potential fields including the classical
field their sum in the middle, with least action and conservation,
then about Einstein's bridge and rotational space-contraction,
because Einstein's theory is classical in the limit.

Usually the unit impulse function, and, the radial basis function,
are two analytical features, of interest. For example, the
Dirac delta, also known as unit impulse, is not-a-real-function,
that's modeled as a continuum limit of real functions, that
always has area 1, but is a spike of infinite height and infinitesimal
width at the origin. The radial basis function, is a round bump
on the line, with area 1, say. A droplet, is like a sphere,
yet it's pointed in a direction, which is the direction of
the classical force vector, in the theory of waves.


So, here we're talking about the infinitely-many higher-order
derivatives of velocity, calling those "v^prime(infinity)".

Correspondingly there's about "e^x + e^-x", and also the
power series out both sides of that, and, the sinusoidal,
with respect to, the inch-worm.

Einstein knows Newton, and, Newton doesn't define what
happens except "rests stays at (constant) rest, motion
stays at (constant) motion, all interactions follow a
billiard ball model of perfect inelastic collisions",
yet things don't and they aren't. It's undefined.
So, Einstein, helps recognize, that there are some
sorts these "Newton's Zero-eth laws of motion".


I studied this for a while the other day and the
usual gimme-gimme-gratification or cursory search
arrives pretty much at "well, you see, it's undefined ...".

Yet, life goes on.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Acceleration's higher orders Ramiro Juárez <aj@ateor.es> - 2024-03-09 20:37 +0000
  Re: Acceleration's higher orders Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-03-09 16:26 -0800
    Re: Acceleration's higher orders Ismael Balazowsky Homutov <kkwya@szyem.ru> - 2024-03-10 07:44 +0000
      Re: Acceleration's higher orders Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-03-10 10:03 -0700
        Re: Acceleration's higher orders Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-03-11 10:09 -0700
          Re: Acceleration's higher orders Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-03-11 10:56 -0700
            Re: Acceleration's higher orders Bonny χρήται Μαιανδρίου <gngn@rnl.gt> - 2024-03-11 19:42 +0000
            Re: Acceleration's higher orders Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-03-20 14:10 -0700
              Re: Acceleration's higher orders Olden Ibuka Yokokawa <elo@wnoo.jp> - 2024-03-20 22:04 +0000
        Re: Acceleration's higher orders Lou  Bodnár Sárközi <ddrru@uuo.hu> - 2024-03-11 19:57 +0000

csiph-web