Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I gave you the A, 10 m/s^2.
I wanted to see you formalise the system in the way say a 16 year old high school would doing a mechanics problem. Let's see you formalise and model the problem and we'll go from there. I want to see you do this because it will demonstrate that you are capable of grasping the mechanics of things like torque. If you cannot model the system, using your own mechanical models or mainstream models, then it will demonstrate you lack the ability to comprehend any kind of mathematical response I or anyone else gives to you. I ask because thus far you have shown you don't understand any of the relevant mathematics people, including myself, have done which prove various claims of yours mistaken. I want you to demonstrate you're capable of understanding the sorts of responses you demand. If you cannot do it then simply admit it and we'll go from there.I explained to you that all the information is given to you. What information are you missing?
Nope, rocket stops accelerating. A=0, thus distance=0.
You're asking the question because you think it leads to some result which supports your views. You admit that you think I can do the mathematics and I've shown time and again I am able to do kinematics stuff. However, time and again you've shown you don't understand it when I do. The time has come for you to show you understand this stuff, enough is enough. If you're unable to do it then you should be honest enough to admit it.AN, All the information is there. I am not going to answer the question for you.
I didn't say anything of the sort. This isn't about a lack of information at my end, it is about a lack of understanding at yours. I am asking you to demonstrate you understand this stuff. I've shown plenty of times I can do kinematics. I have not seen any evidence you can, rather a lot of evidence to the contrary.If you need more information then you need to clearly ask me for the specific information you are missing.
Yes, there are all of those relationships, quantitative ones. I have yet to see any reason why I or anyone else should think you know how to apply them to practical use. You repeatedly post things like the SUVAT equations but I don't see you make use of them yourself. Non-slip rotation turning into linear motion is high school level stuff, it is hardly unreasonable for me to ask you to illustrate you know how to do it. After all, if I were to post a load of mathematics now, even basic stuff, and it is something you don't understand then it is a waste of time for everyone.There is a direct relationship between velocity and force. There is a direct relationship between MPH and RPM. There is a direct relationship between torque and HP. There is a direct relationship between torque and gear ratio. There is a direct relationship with the diameter of a tire and its circumference. There is a direct relationship between the circumference of a tire and the distance the axle travels down the road (assuming constant traction at all times). There is a direct relationship between RPM and distance traveled per unit of time. There is a direct relationship between revolutions of the crankshaft and time.
I find it humorous that you get irate and demand things of me, demanding I do another mathematical analysis of some situation you've described, but you refuse to respond likewise even once.FIGURE THE DAMN PROBLEM OUT AND TELL ME YOUR ANSWER!!!
I'm familiar with rotation kinematics as used to drive vehicles. Basic classical dynamics is something taught to every mathematical physicist. The problem is I don't see any reason to think you are, beyond perhaps a bit of practical experience rather than mathematical modelling.Do you know how to obtain the torque numbers for an engine as measured on a dyno? Do you understand how a dyno works?
So all the other times I responded in detail don't count for anything and your integrity is fine even though you refuse to demonstrate you can do this stuff even once? You hypocrite.
You specifically said in a previous post your conclusion was different from (and I quote) "the accepted mathematical method". If that is the case then applying 'the accepted mathematical method' will yield a result which you disagree with. How is me doing the 'accepted mathematical method' going to conclude what you have concluded?
If it started accelerating and it stopped accelerating then it must have accelerated for a duration of time.
Doesn't matter. A=0, thus distance=0. (Unless of course you consider all sorts of messy things like reality and other equations - and I know how you hate that.)
Why are you trying to say that a 14mm wrench is useless just because it doesn't fit a 10mm bolt?
You are trying to say that equation is useless and I am trying to show you that if you knew the time then the equation is perfect.
You don't know the time and you are blaming the equation.
so are the laws of physics the same or not? I know it and you don't.