Androcles wrote:
> "Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
> news:1130663976.967458.308580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Sam Wormley wrote:
> | > Androcles wrote:
> | >
> | > > Velocity is DEFINED as distance divided by time.
> | >
> | >    Androcles is incorrect. Velocity is defined as the derivative of
> | >    position with respect to time.
> | >      http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html
> |
> |
> | hey stoooooooooooooooooopid copy and paste imbecile, stop posting links
> | with wrong/innacurate information.
> |
> | For one-dimensional motion AT CONSTANT ACCELERATION (i.e. constant
> | force, according to F = d(mv)/dt), then equation (2) can be derived
> | from equation (1). In the case of dynamical motion, equation (2)
> | supposes constant mass also.
> |
> | Have you ever taken a single Mechanics course so you can understand
> | these concepts before posting links with false/incomplete/innacurate
> | information?
>
> Thanks, Mike.
> dx is of course a distance, however short, and dt is a duration, however brief.
> Neither can be zero.
> v = dx/dt is distance divided by time, and Wormley is a no-neuron divided by
> infinity.
> Androcles.

Actually, I have a much simpler problem for Sam Wormhead and his likes.
Let x = gt^2/2, the well-known equation first discovered by Galileo
(and his likes). Let x = x+dx at t = t+dt then

x+dx = g (t+dt)^2/2. Now expand the squared term:

x+dx = g [t^2+(dt)^2+2tdt]/2 . Next re-arrange:

x+dx = gt^2/2 + g [(dt)^2+2tdt]/2 .But gt^2/2 in the right hand side
equals x. Then:

dx = g [(dt)^2+2tdt]/2. Now, divide both sides of equations by dt to
get:

dx/dt = gdt/2 + gt

Oh, My God, help us, what's going on! Please help God, said Berkeley
and declared Newton an idiot. As a result, also Sam Wormhead (and his
likes) is also an idiot because if he believes that velocity is the
time rate of change of position then unfortunately:

dx/dt = gt

and there is an extra term, gdt/2, idiots like Wormhead just neglect.
No wonder, there is all sorts of indeterminacy in physics.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. And any excuses of the form "we let dt go to
zero, are simply unacceptable. As Berkeley said, how in the world can
you consider a quantity first to suit your derivation, and then set it
to zero to cancel the terms you do not like? Hahahahahahahahahahahah

God save us from the idiots Androcles. The whole physics and math needs
re-working.

Mike