Infinite acceleration?!

[Troll King]

Originally posted by Epinephrine
Basically troll just did the delta-epsilon proof in his own way, the proof that shows you how calculus limits work, and thus will show why infinite acceleration does not exist.

-Epi

"Calculus for Dummies" by Dennis Chung

[EternalEntropy]

Originally posted by Fluffz
additionally id like to say dont change the reference models or relation system(now idea how you call it) this will only make trouble. acceleration starts at t0 and x0 by definition. there is no acceleration before you increade v and if u change t0 to a random point and compare it to the former t0 you might get closer to solving this by throwing darts

no, acceleration is not speed. by adding the factor time to infinite acceleration the results is a speed of 2m/s or 10m/s or whatever
[/B]

Umm... you're wrong on both accounts.
You can accelerate at any speed and the reference point doesnt have to be t0 or x0. You can be deaccelerating when you're traveling 50m/s or accelerating at a rate of 0 m/s for 10 seconds then start to accelerate at 5/ms for 20 seconds. Acceleration doesnt have to be measured from t0 and x0, that would be stupid and it isnt defined that way either.

Of course acceleration is not speed, but at infinite acceleration time is effected to where the object in fact experiences no time whatsover, thereby traveling to any distance instantly.

To acheive infinite acceleration you need infinite force acting upon the object.

[Malladrin]

Originally posted by Da1andonly
Lol this reminds me of philosohpy...dunno what these were called..something like palindromes =P

We are not talking about palindromes here, a palindrome is a word or sentence that is the same backwards as forwards:

Anna
wow
civic

Drab as a fool, aloof as a bard.

A Santa deified at NASA.

Do good? I? No! Evil anon I deliver. I maim nine more hero-men in Saginaw, sanitary sword a-tuck, Carol, I--lo!--rack, cut a drowsy rat in Aswan. I gas nine more hero-men in Miami. Reviled, I (Nona) live on. I do, O God!

[TelC@t]

Originally posted by Verthanthi
Also, a fun little "proof" that 1=2

let a = b
a² = ab
a² + a² = a² + ab
2a² = a² + ab
2a² - 2ab = a² - ab
2(a² - ab) = a² - ab
2 =1

Easy peasy to disprove, if you know what you're looking for. It's similar to what it is that you're trying to do.

OMG you are telling me

2 X 0 = 1 X 0?

You are genius, you deserve a donut!

[Noah]

I BARF on this topic

[Fluffz]

Originally posted by Troll King
You forgot one thing though: by definition, I1 and I2 are both distinct from Io. Therefore there must be a finite (though admittedly really small) difference between them. [...] Though delta t approaches zero and is really small, by definition it never actually reaches zero, so you cannot assume that it is.

Oh, and the square root of -1 is not undefined, but rather within the realm of imaginary numbers.

1st why should the difference between them be finite small? it is infinite small

2nd I2 - I1 for both heading to 0 can have following 4 results:
a.) a finite value -> not in our case because there is no way define that value
b.) 0 -> we both agree this cant be furthermore it is a finite value
c.) infinite small -> per definition you can cut away as many values from the infinite value range as you want and the majority of values is still in that range
d.) i -> which is defined in the range (0,1) of the real numbers (which includes infinite small)
a and b being wrong but c and d resulting in infinite acceleration i win again

3rd the point I1 would be negative anyway which results in inf. small - (-inf small) = inf small + inf small = inf. small

Originally posted by EternalEntropy
You can accelerate at any speed and the reference point doesnt have to be t0 or x0.

thats not what i ment but anyway lets continue your thought:

image something drives 10 seconds, 5 of them with a constant speed and 5 of them accelerating. a delta t of 10-0 gives an other acceleration as result than a delta t of 10-5
basicaly you just prooved your own 2 point delta theory wrong. this 2 point thing just works in some particularly cases but the d thing works always

Originally posted by EternalEntropy
Of course acceleration is not speed, but at infinite acceleration time is effected to where the object in fact experiences no time whatsover, thereby traveling to any distance instantly.

i didnt get that but anyway just because one value is infinite doesnt mean the result is infinite. you are going nowhere just because your acceleration is infinite end of discussion

[Fluffz]

well i just opened my 1st grade physics book and whoopdedoo surprise! the a-t graph actualy looks like this thing below which i could not remember. i should have known sooner that you get some strange graph if you set time in relation to time (v/t/t) jeez

|a
|
|
|        _____
|       |     |
|_______|     |
|             |_________
|________________________t
t0     t1    t2

now someone explain me the acceleration at the point t0, t1 and t2 without using the word infinite. gl

[Troll King]

You are making faulty assumptions, Fluffz.

First you are assuming that "infinite" and "Infinitely small" are actual numbers when they are concepts and not actual numbers at all.

Another faulty assumption you've made repeatedly is with infinitely small numbers approaching zero. You therefore assume that the number IS zero, leading to a delta v over 0. Whether or not you consider delta t for 1 and I0 to be finite or not, it doesn't matter. The problem we've come across is that the number approaches 0, and you've repeatedly assumed then that it is zero. That is not the case, as it never actually reaches zero. Therefore you never have a delta v/0, which is the heart of your claims for an infinite acceleration.



I'm also not quite sure what you meant in where you said "d) i -> which is defined in the range (0,1) of the real numbers (which includes infinite small).

If you were referring to i as in the sqaure root of -1, then you are no longer dealing with the set of real numbers but the set of imaginary numbers. This has nothing to do with the problem at hand, so I'm not quite sure if that is what you meant.



As far as you graph is concerned, at no time is the value of acceleration anywhere near infinite. What you are thinking of is da/dt, not acceleration itself. You can have an instantaneous change in acceleration. That does not imply an infinite acceleration however.

In fact, looking at the v/t graph that induced this a/t graph, you will see that at all times, acceleration is finite. If you permit me to let each "|" mark you used to mark the a-axis be a single unit, the accelerations graph are always either 2 or 4 (and possibly 0 if you are assuming the object starts at rest). None of these accelerations are infinite.

[Fluffz]

Originally posted by Troll King
First you are assuming that "infinite" and "Infinitely small" are actual numbers when they are concepts and not actual numbers at all.

i never did that and just because they are no actual numbers doesnt mean you cant work with them

Therefore you never have a delta v/0, which is the heart of your claims for an infinite acceleration.

actualy its the other way round. v devided by a number approaching zero leads to infinite acceleration and this is what icer said. you have infinite acceleration at the beginning.
you have a "delta" of v->0/(t->0)^2 which results in an infinite output. i never argued anything about v/0 in fact i said that there is no t=0 all the time.

If you were referring to i as in the sqaure root of -1, then you are no longer dealing with the set of real numbers but the set of imaginary numbers. This has nothing to do with the problem at hand, so I'm not quite sure if that is what you meant.

you can express the imaginary numbers with real numbers just like you can experess 0,5 by 1/2. now if infinite-infinite=i (which some people think it is) and i is in the range of [0-1] covering the range of infinite small values you still get infinite high output.

You can have an instantaneous change in acceleration. That does not imply an infinite acceleration however.

i say it does. you could never jump to the other value if you would not have a point that covers all real numbers. this point is described by infinite.

In fact, looking at the v/t graph that induced this a/t graph, you will see that at all times, acceleration is finite.

the a-t graph is in the 4th dimension any my imagination has been destroyed by cheap porn. i see nothing, my head hurts and i got horny. THANKS


i just found the bug in this it pretty much negates every argument posted. nasty little stuff. more to come tomorrow and this time i am 100% sure.

[Troll King]

This is getting frustrating.

First of all, you cannot subtract "infinity" or use it in any mathematical equations because it is not technically a number. On several occasions you've tried to subtract "inf small" and other functions. When I say infinity is not a number, I mean just that. It's not a number, or even a variable, but a concept. You can go towards infinity, but it's not a number you can plug into an equation (as you've done later in your post).

Infinite acceleration would lead to an object having two different velocities at the same moment in time. That would mean that delta t must be 0.

Yes, you can express imaginary numbers using real numbers. You are no longer dealing with the real number set however, but with the set of complex numbers of which real numbers are a subset.

Instantaneous change in acceleration is possible but does not imply infinite acceleration. All the graph shows is that the acceleration has changed. You're assuming that in the instant of that change, the acceleration changes from the previous value to an infinite one and then changes to the following acceleration.


I don't know if it's a language barrier issue but sometimes it looks like you're making things up on the spot, sometimes it looks like you're arguing one side and then switching, and sometimes you make huge jumps from one statement to the next with little logic connecting them.

[Fluffz]

Originally posted by Troll King
You can go towards infinity, but it's not a number you can plug into an equation (as you've done later in your post).

thats exactly what you tried to do with your delta I.
people put it into equations all the time just look at sequences and series, limits, intersection and the calculus. Its not only a spooky concept you can actualy work with it.

Infinite acceleration would lead to an object having two different velocities at the same moment in time.

thats just as untrue as saying the speed would increast to infinite. where do u guys get that from.

You're assuming that in the instant of that change, the acceleration changes from the previous value to an infinite one and then changes to the following acceleration.

no, it does not change to an infinite value, it can be any real value what you can describe with the word infinite.



But the problem is following:


the formula a=dx/dt^2 is shit. as simple as that. teachers feed it the 1st grade kids because it looks so easy. but it is not, this formula is wrong!
you can calculate the exercises in your 1st grade physics book but nothing else.

to be able to apply above formula you need a relation between time and way that looks like the this:
x(t)=k*t^2 what results in
v(t)=k*t what leads to
a(t)=k what means this schietzleh is faked(a=2k)!
(due the fact that t^3 or t^1,5 would result in an unstatic acceleration for which you need the other formula)

now what does that mean?
you actualy have to know the acceleration before you can calculate the acceleration.
you can only calculate a static acceleration without a start, a stop or a change because of the simplicity of x(t) and t!=0
you can not argue about the acceleration in the beginning based on this formula

actualy i doubt anyone of us saw the correct acceleration formula before but acceleration is a mathematical construct, so...
anyway since i based my argumentation on this formula and its limits i am screwed now tho it doesnt mean i am wrong

i hope you get the idea. verthanthi was close to this already

[Troll King]

Argh...
You cannot express infinity - infinity or any other number as you have done. You can use infinity as part of the equation, but only as a construct for the situation in the equation and not part of the actual inputed values. You can limit as x approaches infinity because in that context, infinity isn't being used as a number but as a concept. What you cannot do is say Infinity - 1 or any other similar arithmetic expression. The difference between this and my I1 - I0 is not a calculation to find an actual amount. That is irrelevent. The purpose was to show that it was not zero.



...

Before we continue, I think there is a communication breakdown at work here.

What do you mean when you use the terms "infinite" and "infinite acceleration"? I'm not sure that we're both using those terms in the same way.

And an even bigger question: what the hell does "schietzleh" mean?

[Fluffz]

nevermind i give up, acceleration is given by the 2nd derivative of x(t) and not by v/t. For 1st grade examples it does not make a difference but in our case it is important. eg:

x(t)=X0+X0*t+b*t²/2+c*t³/6
a(t)=b+ct

no way a is heading to infinite unless of course you have infinite time which isnt to realistic.

now i could go like: no way look at light when it hits a wall. it cant go below light speed and jet it comes back what means it has to deaccelerate and accelerate infinite fast. sounds clever but it isnt.

and schietzleh is short for shit

[Verthanthi]

Thanks for taking over Troll, I am basically the worst teacher ever.

P.S. "schietzleh" is actually longer than "shit".

[Fluffz]

only if you live in the boring world of reality