This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I don't understand the equation in the article, is it possibly wrong?
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)
"Planar decomposition" of acceleration into tangential and normal component
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)
Decomposition of acceleration into tangential and normal component is the same for space curves as well
Correction of some minor errors and of a common misconception related to planar-spatial curves
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Have been reverted 2 times. Where to place it?
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? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
@DVdm: 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? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
No, without a source that establishes its notability, let's not include it. - DVdm (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)