Talk:Acceleration

message: I don't understand the equation in the article, is it possibly wrong?
: \mathbf {s}= \mathbf {u} t+ {{1} \over {2}} \mathbf {a}t^2 = \mathbf {u} t+ {{1} \over {2}} {{v} \over {t}} \mathbf t^2 = {(\mathbf{u}+{{1} \over {2}}\mathbf{v})t} 
:You have substituted a = v/t, but v is not a t. The final speed v is given by v = u + a t. Hope this helps. - DVdm (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniform acceleration 

message: The section of the article on tangential and centripetal acceleration contains the statement that "the acceleration of a particle moving on a curved path on a planar surface can be written using the chain rule of differentiation... etc" (immediately before the reference number 4).
This claim that such decomposition of acceleration is valid only for planar curves is further supported by the statement "Extension of this approach to three-dimensional space curves that cannot be contained on a planar surface leads to the Frenet–Serret formulas", which appears at the end of the section.
Would the authors care to explain why they believe that decomposition into tangential and normal acceleration cannot be done in the same way for "space curves"? I see nothing in the derivation presented that would support such a claim.--Ilevanat (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Planar decomposition" of acceleration into tangential and normal component 

message: Having established that the author of the article section under disscusion will not answer my question (see User talk:Brews ohare), and due to my determination not to edit work of others without consent, I can only here inform the interested readers that the tangential and normal acceleration formulas in the article are equally valid for planar and spatial curves. See, for example, the following link:
http://www.math.oregonstate.edu/home/programs/undergrad/CalculusQuestStudyGuides/vcalc/velacc/velacc.html
--Ilevanat (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decomposition of acceleration into tangential and normal component is the same for space curves as well 

message: Allowing for the possibility that the previous author is forbidden even to discuss the physics-related articles, I have finally decided to make corrections described above.--Ilevanat (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction of some minor errors and of a common misconception related to planar-spatial curves 

message: I suggest that the name of this page be changed to Coordinate acceleration so as to contrast it with Proper acceleration.
KingSupernova (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current article (Acceleration) can safely remain as it is now, in a more general, non-relativistic context, in which Coordinate acceleration already is redirected to Proper acceleration, as it should. - DVdm (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That I guess makes sense for the article title, but I think coordinate acceleration should definitely redirect to acceleration and not proper acceleration. KingSupernova (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure about that, as coordinate acceleration is only used in the context of non-Galilean relativity, where it is opposed to proper acceleration. Strictly speaking, perhaps we should have an article relativistic acceleration to which both coordinate and proper would redirect, but I don't think we'll find consensus for that.What say others? - DVdm (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since most of the page on acceleration is really talking about proper acceleration and neither page really make the differece clear, I think the best thing would be to merge both pages into one, under acceleration, with different sections for the different kinds. However this would probably cause the page to be too long and complicated, so what might be simpler would be to clarify acceleration, making clear the differences between the two, and remnoving a lot of the information about proper acceleration and giving links to proper acceleration instead. Some other people's thoughts would be helpful here. KingSupernova (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

text: No way. The current name is what most people looking for an article on acceleration would expect to see. Dger (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it doesn't really matter as the page they searched for would redirect to the right one. KingSupernova (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: Have been reverted 2 times. Where to place it? \mathbf{a} = \lim_{{\Delta t}\to 0} \frac{\Delta \mathbf{v}}{\Delta t} = \frac{d\mathbf{v}}{dt} = v \frac {d\mathbf{v}}{dx}Moreover, I feel that using "t" is time interval instead of just time would be better. If we are here to improve the pedia, why not be clear that nobody in audience has any difficulty?117.248.121.6 (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The v dv/dx expression, referring to a derivative w.r.t. position, just does not seem to fit in the text where the topic is derivative w.r.t. time, as here and here. It is of course true, but is it useful? Do you have a source where it is actually used? If so, we could perhaps include it—and the source—in a separate subsection. - DVdm (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Re your remark about time interval: usually the variable t is called time, whereas an explicit time interval is represented by Δt. - DVdm (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  t is called time, but in the formula, we put the time interval as the value. And, it always remains to the reader that hoe s/he remembers it. I feel the explicit correct/ wrong can't be decided. And that formula: My sir had taught me. I too thought it had no use. But a month later (3rd of May, 2015) in AIPMT, the question was find acceleration. v(x) = k (x^[-2n]) and there I found the use of this formula's use for the very first time. So, shall I include it?117.248.121.6 (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, without a source that establishes its notability, let's not include it. - DVdm (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

text:  By the way, this was a good find. However, I relinked time to the relevant article Time in physics. - DVdm (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to place this? 

message: The equation:
: \mathbf{s}(t) = \mathbf{s}_0 + \mathbf{v}_0 t+ \tfrac{1}{2} \mathbf{a}t^2 = \frac{\mathbf{v}_0+\mathbf{v}(t)}{2}t 
seems wrong, since the last part does not contain \mathbf{s}_0. The equation seems to mixing up displacement and position. See http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/science/physics-and-astronomy/describing-motion-along-line/content-section-1.6.1#ueqn001-050  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLópez-Ibáñez (talk • contribs) 18:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right and I've fixed it, -- Dr Greg  talk  20:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is still wrong to talk about initial displacement. Displacement at time t is the difference between position at time t and initial position. Thus initial displacement has to be zero by definition. MLópez-Ibáñez (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added words to clarify that, in this case, s is displacement from the origin, not displacement from the initial position. -- Dr Greg  talk  00:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong equation in Uniform acceleration? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Acceleration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101108131449/http://www.measurespeed.com/acceleration-calculator.php to http://measurespeed.com/acceleration-calculator.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can the category of this vital article be category?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  category=category 

message: — Assignment last updated by Janyahmercedes (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: PHY 381 History of Modern Physics

message: — Assignment last updated by Lzepeda12 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: 4A Wikipedia assignment

message: I think it should say just the velocity. I don't see why it would say change in velocity. 2.36.106.75 (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The integral of acceleration is the change in velocity