Quote:
Originally Posted by theman352001
Bino and I are stating the same thing. I just didn't use the word "average" which I probably should have. (brain fart)
I also read his use of the word "translation" as meaning "conversion" and not "calculation". There is no direct "conversion" (between miles/hour & meters/second^2) but there is a "calculation" which I then provided for him. The calculation, as Bino pointed out, provides average acceleration and not instantaneous acceleration at any particular point in time.
So then, what is incorrect?
.

The conversion is not mph to m/s/s, it is from 060mph to m/s/s. There is a difference. Sure, it's average acceleration, but it's still measurable in m/s/s.
You have to remember, he did not say: "what's 60mph in m/s/s?" ... he said: "what's 060mph in m/s/s?". This is an acceleration (if taken as an average). Therefore it is a conversion, not a calculation ... once again, provided you qualify this as an average acceleration.
Let's sum up:
KEY POINT: If you take 060mph as a constant or average, then it IS an acceleration, and thus can be measured in metres per second squared.
COUNTER POINT: Cars do not have constant acceleration, so 060 is merely a time measure of how quickly a car can get to 60 from a standing start, and isn't really quantifiable in m/s/s units.
So, I think we're both right, it all just depends on whether you make the constant/average acceleration assumption or not.