First of all, I found error in the definition of acceleration. There are two methods to determine if an object is accelerating. With the first method we measure the distance an object is covering in a certain period of time. Suppose an object covers 1 meter in the first second. But in the other second the object covers 2 meters. We certainly have acceleration here because the speed of an object was increased from 1m/s to 2m/s. With the second method we measure the time it takes for an object to cover a certain distance. Suppose an object covers the distance of one meter in one second, but the next meter is covered in half of the time. Here we also have acceleration, because the speed of an object was increased from 1m/s to 2m/s (1m/ 1/2s = 2m/s). However, we don't really know what is going on: we don't know what the acceleration is and what causes the acceleration. Speed contains only two elements: distance over time d/t. Therefore, we can describe both of these methods in the equations: nd/t = d/t/n where “n” stands for unknown value. We can clearly see that “n” must increase in both equations to get acceleration. In the first equation “n” must increase value because the greater the distance covered by an object in a certain time equals higher speed. In the second equation “n” must also increase because to get a higher speed, the object must cover a certain distance in a smaller time.
If in place of “n” we use time (t), in both equations we are getting the distance (d). Distance is the value we are looking for, because only distance was increased in both of our experiments. Now, if we use distance (d) in place of “n” in both equations we are getting d²/t, which is the proper description of the acceleration. Acceleration is a change in the distance of speed and this is the proper definition of acceleration. We are never going to get acceleration in form of d/t² , which is today's acceleration. Now, compare my acceleration a = d²/t to the Planck constant h = md²/t.
If we divide the Planck constant by my acceleration of c (speed of light), we get the mass contained in the Planck constant which is 7.372 x 10 - 51 kg. Should we now call it a particle or a quantum of mass? Yes, it's a particle, but not a quantum of mass.

demarmat wrote:First of all, I found error in the definition of acceleration.

Wow, you are certain to be awarded the next Nobel prize for physics.

demarmat wrote:d²/t, which is the proper description of the acceleration.

Substituting S.I. units you get

m²/s

which does not make sense.

demarmat wrote:Acceleration is a change in the distance of speed

What on earth is 'the distance of speed'?

demarmat wrote:d/t²

Speed is d/t or m/s in S.I. units. Acceleration is defined as change of speed per second or

Δ(d/t) /t or in S.I. units m/s /s = m/s²

which still makes sense to me

demarmat wrote:First of all, I found error in the definition of acceleration.

Having done so, you then decided to join a web forum to tell complete strangers all about it.

demarmat wrote:First of all, I found error in the definition of acceleration. ...

{Pantomime season has arrived early this year.}

Oh! No! You haven't!

A change of distance, dx, takes x -> x + dx. The rate of this change is defined as the velocity, v, in the x direction.
vx = dx/dt

Acceleration, a, is defined as the rate of change of velocity: ax = dvx/dt = d(dx/dt)/dt = d2x/dt2.

Note that dx may be positive (increasing x direction) or negative and the sign of dx determines the signs of velocity and acceleration.

The Planck mass, Mp, is expressed as, Mp = (hc/G)1/2 where letters denote common physical constants (Planck's constant, the speed of light in vacuo and Newton's constant of Gravitational action) and calculates to approximately 0.02 milligrammes.

...and they all lived happily until they slipped on the banana skin of quantum gravity theory.

{INTERLUDE}

The object moves and at the same time (AT THE SAME TIME!!!) changes its speed (slows down or speeds up). My acceleration is not a vector and has no direction! Apparently Einstein also had the same opinion, but he couldn't explain it. I can! When d = 1, the object moves uniformly at the same speed. When d < 1, the object slows down, and when d > 1, the object speeds up. And when d = 0 then the object does not move at all. What is hard to understand here! Now I have a question: how did so many mindless trolls get into this forum?

Indeed, is this a kindergarten for babies?

demarmat wrote:Now I have a question: how did so many mindless trolls get into this forum?

Well?

Come on, spit it out - how did you get here?

demarmat wrote:we can describe both of these methods in the equations: nd/t = d/t/n

How is nd/t = d/t/n an equation?

Let d = 2 metres
Let t = 2 seconds
If n = 8
then 8 x 2 / 2 = 8
but the other side of what you call an equation, being 2 / 2 / 8, works out at 0.125

I was taught that the value of one side of an equation must always be equal to the value on the other side. If it's not, it's not an equation. That's what my primary school maths teacher said anyway, but what would she know? She only studied maths at university, a well known source of fake news. Some maths teachers are so gullible, it's sickening.

Another earth shattering discovery first revealed on RatSKep!

BTW, there's this artihmetic thingy called "calculus" that is pretty good at describing things like acceleration. You can probably find a course online.

Newton's laws applied to forums and trolls:

1. In the absence of forums, mindless trolls, m, are also directionless and experience no unbalanced force.

2. When forums are accessible, m accelerate towards them (-a) due to a force, F = -ma.

3. For each troll, a forum moderator exists such as to maintain a net balance in the force.

laklak wrote:You can probably find a course online.

Sometimes overestimating people is just cruel, Lak.

newolder wrote:
3. For each troll, a forum moderator exists such as to maintain a net balance in the force.

I felt a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of brain cells cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

demarmat wrote:The object moves and at the same time (AT THE SAME TIME!!!) changes its speed (slows down or speeds up). My acceleration is not a vector and has no direction! Apparently Einstein also had the same opinion, but he couldn't explain it. I can! When d = 1, the object moves uniformly at the same speed. When d < 1, the object slows down, and when d > 1, the object speeds up. And when d = 0 then the object does not move at all. What is hard to understand here! Now I have a question: how did so many mindless trolls get into this forum?

Acceleration is a vector because not all motion is linear (e.g. a planet orbiting a sun, a car turning a corner). In equations of linear motion, which are restricted cases where the acceleration (or deceleration) and motion are all colinear acceleration is treated as a signed real, not a vector.

For example under uniform acceleration:
s = ut + 1/2 at2

If one further restricts the case, so that u=0 then one gets:
s = 1/2 at2

Which will give
a = 2s/t2, unlike your OP, which implies the correct formula is a = d/t2 (which I think is just some sort of error resulting from dropping of deltas and/or small value approximations in equations). As has been said dimensional analysis of the quantities in your OP shows the units are inconsistent and indicate an error as well, when you assume n=d in general cases of acceleration.

You can also see that easily in simple examples involving your equation a = d2/t. An object dropped from 45m under Earth's freefall gravitic acceleration (~10m/s2) does indeed take ~3sec to fall to Earth, as it should, not as it would under your suggestion (I'd calculate that, but of course there is no fixed value for g under your idea, so I can't).

There's probably no point going further, but even if one did the superficial similarity between equations like "a = d²/t [compared] to the Planck constant h = md²/t" is not a physical reason to justify anything.

Give me a simple and clear definition of direction that every observer in the universe will understand and will know what direction you talking about: up. down, right or left. Does electron, proton or atom knows where up or down is?! Nobody knows what really direction is! Before you post another mindless text use my mass in Heisenberg's uncertainty principals. Also, google for De Broglie's rest mass of light. It's good to know, but it's much better to understand. By the way, Wikipedia is not the best place to get knowledge.

That's gibberish.

First, demar must define "boredom trolling". Oh wait, they already do.

demarmat wrote:...Heisenberg's uncertainty principals. Also, google for De Broglie's rest mass of light. It's good to know, but it's much better to understand. By the way, Wikipedia is not the best place to get knowledge.

Oh. Advice from someone who confuses "principle" with "principal".

You could do a lot worse than to consult the Wikipedia, demarat. It won't be beaten by any other encyclopaedia. Not only does it provide easily understood basic knowledge on many topics, but also a fuckton of links for further reading, should you be inclined to learn about them in depth.

I suggest you start with really, really basic stuff, like the meaning of "principle". I guarantee you'll learn something even if you just read the first short and easy to understand sentence. It goes like this: "Not to be confused with Principal."

If you feel ambitious, you could move on to looking up the Wikipedia's entry regarding Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, of which there's only one, by the way. If you feel the article lacks explanatory power, you can always click on any of the 91 links for further reading, at least one of which will get you to Werner Heisenberg's original publication on his uncertainty principle in 1927. But I don't think you'll get much past the first three introductory paragraphs. Unless you can actually follow the mathematics involved, you'll be lost by the time you get to