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 0-60mph 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 0-60mph 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 0-60mph 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 0-60 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.