Talk:Physics with Calculus/Mechanics/Velocity and Acceleration

While density is defined as the ratio of mass to volume, mass is not defined in terms of density. Such a definition would be circular. Moreover the abstracted reference to Special Relativity is inappropriate given the context.

Moreover, the title states "Calculus-based", yet no differentials were used. Frankly I think this adjective should be removed and the page should include both the integral/differential form as well as the general (algebraic) form.

--Eibwen 09:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the $$m = \rho v$$. I agree that this page needs to be reworked, but I do not see how the reference to Special Relativity is inappropriate. The title is "Conservation of Mass" which is "violated" given the right circumstances. As long as it remains as a reference, it is fine in my opinion.

--jeffpc 04:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Moved the entire page under a new heading. There is really no need to mention conservation of mass in this physics textbook (and not at this early (i.e. Part I) stage) (as we don't deal with chemical/nuclear reactions too much), and if anything, conservation of mass would be useful for something analogous to Continuity Equation of EM (or... does it go by the same name in mechanics?), but that's related to fluid mechanics, which probably won't get added until this book is more mature. So, I moved the page under new heading so that there's no orphaned page or a to-be-worked-on page that's left hanging.... novakyu 08:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what's been said. The stuff here seems irrelevant. I would suggest some kinematics first, i.e. no mentions of mass, yet. At least, not till we get to Newton and dynamics.

Define displacement, velocity, and acceleration; and then the kinematic equations. That's one good chapter, there. Yeah, I guess I'm a traditionalist.

--Drauh 10:23, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)