I thought you would have constructed a better response than Simon says.
***The problem is right here:
>>>Here is where I dispute this whole notion of the equation defining acceleration.< br>
You you are essentially saying that you are not capable of the rigor required to perform abstract deduction on a proposed abstract definition.
***H: Had Aristotle been right, the equation of acceleration would include mass. But, Aristotle was wrong which Galileo established in his experiments. D: No Harv, that statement is incorrect!***
And that would be why?
***The term acceleration is very useful, but it was not elected as definition so that it would be true by definition, it was selected because it was found true in experiments. D: Not because it was found "true" Harv; but rather because it was found "useful".***
Okay, I can accept that. It was found that the definition of acceleration was useful (or instrumental) in describing the phenomena that Galileo had in his mind.
***I think you still miss the entire point. And by the way, I was not "tagging in for Aurino", I was trying to explain to you what Aurino was talking about.***
Which you didn't do. Why?
Dick, 'Simon says' arguments just won't do. You at least agree that definitions are selected because they are instrumental in identifying a phenomena seen in experiments, so why don't you accept that the concept of acceleration can be meaningless (or even wrong) if the background context of its application is changed? This is true even if the variables x, t, dx/dt, dv/dt, etc are all present (e.g., with the photon travelling at light speed in a vacuum).
Warm regards, Harv