Question about the units of acceleration?

AI Thread Summary
The unit of acceleration is defined as meters per second squared (m/s²), with standard gravity being approximately 9.8 m/s². Different expressions of acceleration, such as 4.9 m per half second squared or 588 m per second per minute, illustrate that the dimension remains consistent as length divided by time squared. The discussion emphasizes that the numerical value of acceleration is meaningless without its unit, similar to how distance varies with different units of measurement. Ultimately, the choice of unit does not alter the fundamental nature of acceleration; it simply changes the representation. Understanding acceleration requires recognizing the relationship between the numerical value and its unit of measure.
kattahk
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
The general unit if acceleration is meter per second per second.

Let's play with the unit of the standard acceleration due to gravity which is 9.8 meter per second per second.

Thus how acceleration can be explained if its unit is expressed as 4.9 meter per half second per second or 588 meter per second per minute or 35280 meter per second per hour.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
All you've done is change the units.

The dimension is still length/(time^2), so it's still an acceleration.
 
It's no more mysterious than the room I'm in being 8ft long, and also 2.4m long, and 0.0024km long. I can't communicate anything helpful by saying "it's this long", so we agree on a standard length and write a distance as multiples of that length. If we agree different standard lengths then the same distance is a different number of standard lengths.

Acceleration is a bit more complex because you've got a standard length and two standard time intervals to play with, but the principle is the same. The number doesn't mean anything on its own. The unit on its own doesn't mean anything. The number times the unit means the same thing whether you choose ms-2 or atto-parsecs per micro-fortnight per nano-year.
 
Is there a question here?
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Why does a free rigid body rotate only about its COM when F(ext) is applied?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Different units while calculating Acceleration of Rotating Objects
Replies
4
Views
3K
Acceleration due to gravity question.
Replies
7
Views
4K
Newtons and Newton meters for pushing a weight
Replies
29
Views
5K
Does the gravitational rate of acceleration increase within a planet?
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
B Understanding F=ma: Constant Speed & Acceleration
Replies
9
Views
2K
Why Isn't Horsepower an SI Unit, Despite Its Popularity?
Replies
29
Views
4K
How to calculate velocity based on distance and time?
Replies
7
Views
5K
Bell siphon: output rate multiple times higher than the input rate?..
Replies
8
Views
1K
Equation of Gravity's Acceleration Misunderstanding
Replies
6
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top