quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

sorry tommy no one here by that name or description, you looking in the mirror and talking to yourself again I see.


You are sorry alright. You, the Nazi buffoon who claims steel melts in a bonfire, have been shown to be a pathetic
liar who when confronted with facts runs and hides and seeks to take the discussion into minutia and avoid the
lies he has been found to post. This is your usual m.o.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

choke on it!

with the specific point placed on the graph at a specific time for the specific distance you dont derive anything because it already shows the instaneous value for speed and distance

I put up examples meant for kids and you still dont get it

no, read Einstein (and even Newton) an instant takes TIME!!!!! You dont get it retard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

The subject matter is NOT how you calculate velocity, or an average, it is 'instantaneous', as in the instantaneous value at a precise point in time, exactly what the definition says, and instantaneous applies to speed, voltage, temperature in precisely the same way. Nice try anyway.

AND

I did not say the graph I posted was velocity, I said only distance and time. You took it upon yourself to imagine it is velocity, not that it matters since instantaneous velocity does exist, in which case you would use the deltas to calculate the instantaneous velocity.


"Instantaneous velocity," like any limit, is defined at a specific value of time t. It is purely logical; it can never be observed or measured. To measure a velocity, it is necessary to know both a distance Δs and a time Δt, however small. A body in motion is in motion during every interval of time in which it moves.

That is why it is a derivative value given limits. Why is that so unclear to you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

"Instantaneous velocity,

And you still have nothing instantaneous in your first cartoon graph, you only have start and end no nothing else you can derive an average only. 5/4 =1.25 average.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

You continue to pretend that velocity is constant.

You have no measure nor calculation of the "plucked" point.

I grieve for your intellect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

yes I know when we say 4 its really not 4, that is a figment of our imagination because its really 4 +/- .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I didnt say that snotty you did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealDividedbyZeroRetard
no its not nuff said, you are trying to jam square peg relativity into a round newtonian hole. instantaneous in the physics world since there is no such thing that I am aware of it is meaningless outside its traditional usage which is to denote a specific value [of something/measurement] at a specific moment in time, hence chronologicaly you add up all the instances [points] which result in some sort of line or curve. For instance you can say instantaneous heat transfer, or pressure or...... and that would amount to a single zero [time] 'width' point on a time line typically followed by successive instantaneous values to form a curve. To use it in terms to mean 'fast' in a physics conversation is not appropriate, when describing the properties of something under examination, at least I have never seen it, however I dont do physics for a living either so maybe you can cough up a citation from some university where it used in a relative context to describe the properties of something I will concede.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealDividebyZeroRetard
nope you fail to comprehend the meaning of instantaneous as its used in physics despite it was explained to you in great detail. My usage is not relativistic in any way since instantaneous in the physics world is from my experience zero time, and smaller time intervals are 'closer' to zero time ffs. I told you I would concede the point if you can come up with any kind of university paper to the contrary, meaning that matches your relativistic approach. Seems snotty couldnt do it, so knock yourself out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

what ones Tommy again - he knows in the pure sense there is no such thing as Instantaneous - although they would try and have you believe that with inflation and planck time even I will concede that was fairly quick