Can you allways use speed = distance /time relation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alem2000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relation Speed
AI Thread Summary
The relationship speed = distance/time can be used to find time, but it requires the velocity to be constant for the formula to apply directly. If the velocity varies, the motion can be divided into segments where the velocity is constant, allowing for the calculation of time for each segment. By summing the time intervals from these segments, the total time can be determined. For complex motions with many intervals, calculus may be necessary to accurately find the total time. Understanding these principles is crucial for applying the speed-distance-time relationship effectively.
Alem2000
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
My question is when you know your velocity and the distance traveled...can you allways use speed =distance /time relation to find time..? Because it seems to only work on some occasion...i know this sounds like a stupid question but i just don't get it. Or does your velocity have to be conastant to be able to use this relationship?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
displacement = velocity * time... only when velocity is constant.
 
time=dist./speed

even if the velocity is not constant, you can find the time taken.

Do the following.
Break up the whole motion into parts. And those parts should be such that the velocity is constant in them. Now, for each part, calculate the time as

(distance traveled in that part) / (speed in that part, which is constant)

so you see, now you can add up all of the time intervals to get the whole time.

If the numebr of intervals becomes way too large, then you need to use calculus.

spacetime
www.geocities.com/physics_all/index.html
 
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...
Back
Top