rws_killer5 said:but if an object is accelerating in the negative direction, then deceleration would make the acceleration negative.
If something was accelerating at -9.8m/s^2, deceleration would mean the negative of the acceleration so it would go in the positive direction. So isn't that the same as the direct opposite to the velocity?
rws_killer5 said:but if an object is accelerating in the negative direction, then deceleration would make the acceleration negative.
If something was accelerating at -9.8m/s^2, deceleration would mean the negative of the acceleration so it would go in the positive direction. So isn't that the same as the direct opposite to the velocity?
No, deceleration would mean the object is slowing down, nothing else. There's a deceleration if and only if the magnitude of the velocity vector is decreasing. If someone says a car is decelerating, you have no idea if its acceleration is negative or positive or in the process of changing signs, all you know is that there is an acceleration that is slowing the car down, and this information is independent of the fact that it was accelerating at -9.8ms/^2 previously.rws_killer5 said:If something was accelerating at -9.8m/s^2, deceleration would mean the negative of the acceleration
PiTHON said:You seem to be thinking of deceleration as an operator on the acceleration vector, it isn't. It is just a relationship between velocity and acceleration. An object whose velocity vector is pointing in one direction and is undergoing a net acceleration in the opposite direction is said to be decelerating.
No, deceleration would mean the object is slowing down, nothing else. There's a deceleration if and only if the magnitude of the velocity vector is decreasing. If someone says a car is decelerating, you have no idea if its acceleration is negative or positive or in the process of changing signs, all you know is that there is an acceleration that is slowing the car down, and this information is independent of the fact that it was accelerating at -9.8ms/^2 previously.
rws_killer5 said:Which one of the following is true for a deceleration?
a)the velocity remains constant
b)the acceleration is negative
C)the acceleration is in the direction opposite to the velocity
d)the acceleration is zero
A "very tough" question is one that is complex, multifaceted, and often requires a deep understanding and analysis of a subject. It may also involve multiple steps and require critical thinking skills to arrive at a solution.
When faced with a very tough question, it is important to break it down into smaller, more manageable parts. This allows for a systematic approach and makes it easier to understand and tackle the question. It is also helpful to gather all the relevant information and resources before attempting to answer the question.
An example of a "very tough" question could be: "How can we effectively mitigate the negative impacts of climate change while promoting sustainable economic growth?" This question involves multiple disciplines, complex systems, and ethical considerations, making it a challenging and thought-provoking question.
One strategy for answering "very tough" questions is to use the Socratic method, which involves asking questions to critically analyze and evaluate the question. This can help to uncover underlying assumptions and identify key areas that need to be addressed. Other strategies include brainstorming, research, and seeking input from others.
Yes, it is completely normal to not know the answer to a "very tough" question. In fact, many "very tough" questions have yet to be fully answered or understood. The important thing is to approach the question with an open mind and a willingness to learn and explore new ideas. It is also important to seek help and collaborate with others to find a solution.