Speed vs Velocity: Understanding the Difference

[Adam]

Not sure if this belongs here or in Maths. Just a question about convention and proper use of terms.

It seems to me that if something is moving, it is moving in relation to something else. So any object at any speed automatically has a velocity, unless the speed is 0 maybe. Is there any situation when you would use the term Speed and it would have nothing to do with Velocity?

This probably seems dumb, but I require an absolute definition that leaves no gaps.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Vector = (magnitude, direction)

Speed = Magnitude

Velocity = (Speed, Direction)


Meaningless content removed
Integral

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Adam
Is there any situation when you would use the term Speed and it would have nothing to do with Velocity?

No. Speed V by definition is simply a magnitude of velocity vector V

 

[newton1]

Originally posted by Alexander
No. Speed V by definition is simply a magnitude of velocity vector V

just like you have a velocity vector...you find the Norm of the vector, then it is a speed

 

[schwarzchildradius]

It seems to me that if something is moving, it is moving in relation to something else.

you can pick whatever coordinate system you want, to get whatever velocity you want. The only time it matters is when the velocity is relative to some other coordinate system. You can have velocity magnitude without direction, but then it is not velocity in 3-d+t space, it's 1-d.

 

[plus]

A clear use of speed rather than velocity is to calculate the forces and power involved with a car traveling at a certain speed with respect to the earth. This is independent to velocity.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Incorrect for forces (force is vector quantity) but correct for power.

 

[plus]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Incorrect for forces (force is vector quantity) but correct for power.

But if the frame of reference is the car, then within the other frame of reference, of the earth, if it is traveling at a straight line, then you can compute the forces within the car. The vectors wrt car frame of references are known.

 

[anil]

To ADAM: Speed Vs. Velocity

Get this straight: Speed is just a magnitude with a unit of measurement but lacks direction in other words it's a scaler quanitity. If i say you are traveling @ 75 MPH all i know is you are traveling @ 75 miles per hour relative to the Earth but i don't know which direction you are moving relative to the earth. In order for a scaler quantity to qualify for a vector quantity it must have a direction relative to Earth or an object (usually frame of reference used is an object in Inertia since it's velocity is constant, that means it doesnot change direction). Earth is not in Inertia since it changes direction every singe moment because it rotates even though it's speed may be constant (also Earth's speed is not constant, Kepler's law). Let's say the car is moving east relative to earth. Speed is 75 MPH and Velocity is 75 MPH East.

When you say an object is moving it means object is moving compared to the relative of observer's body. Actually object can have a velocity of 0 compared to anybody in universe: (Object in Inertia at rest) So in reality object can have a velocity of 0. Object at any speed greater than zero has a velocity relative to any object. Object at rest has no velocity because it's velocity is zero and it lacks direction. Velocity is very much preferred in physics because it gives a brief description of a moving body unlike speed. Most physics problems require directions to solve projectile problems so speed is not a good choice. It's highly unlikely a physicist would prefer the term "speed" over "velocity". In dialy life using velocity would be very odd and speed seems to be preferred.

 

[Alexander]

Work: W = (Fs)=Fscos([the])
Power: P= dW/dt=(Fv)=Fvcos([the])

 

[Singularity]

I would say something moves relative to another object rather than in "relation" to another object. Oh, and yes : speed = scalar, velocity = vector =)

 

[schwarzchildradius]

velocity of car from inside car =0
acceleration of car from inside car =0
acceleration of gravity from inside car > 0
acceleration of gravity from outside car >0
velocity of car wrt Earth >0
as you know, acceleration is absolute. velocity is relative.

 

[plus]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
velocity of car from inside car =0
acceleration of car from inside car =0
acceleration of gravity from inside car > 0
acceleration of gravity from outside car >0
velocity of car wrt Earth >0
as you know, acceleration is absolute. velocity is relative.

If x is a vector, you cannot say

x>0

without giving some indication of the nature of the partial ordering.

 

[newton1]

Originally posted by plus
But if the frame of reference is the car, then within the other frame of reference, of the earth, if it is traveling at a straight line, then you can compute the forces within the car. The vectors wrt car frame of references are known.

you can not say the car is traveling at a straight line
you should say it travel a constant velocity
and not constant speed too, because the it can be constant speed but not at the same direction
and you must consider the gravity ...

 

[newton1]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
velocity of car from inside car =0
acceleration of car from inside car =0
acceleration of gravity from inside car > 0
acceleration of gravity from outside car >0
velocity of car wrt Earth >0
as you know, acceleration is absolute. velocity is relative.

strange!
why the acceleration of car from inside car =0 !
and acceleration of gravity from inside car > 0 ??!

 

[schwarzchildradius]

ok that was a little terse, what I was trying to get at is that inside a car moving at uniform velocity, the only acceleration measurable by accelerometer (any pendulum or spring) will be the acceleration of gravity. I was breaking it up into componants, but you certainly can add the vectors for the 3-d vector. Acceleration by changing velocity vector is equivalent to acceleration of gravity, and as a corrolary, acceleration is absolute, not relative.