Can you combine two accelerations together?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynoakib
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
In the discussion about combining accelerations, the user initially miscalculated the maximum altitude of a rocket by subtracting gravitational acceleration from the rocket's vertical acceleration. The correct approach is to use the rocket's acceleration as is, since it represents the actual acceleration provided by the rocket's thrust. Gravity is typically accounted for in the context of projectile motion, but in this case, the given acceleration already includes the effects of gravity. Therefore, combining the two accelerations through subtraction is incorrect. Understanding how to properly interpret the provided acceleration is crucial for accurate calculations in physics.
Zynoakib
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
When I was doing an exercise on projectile motion, there was a question that asked something like the max. altitude reached by an accelerating rocket. After some calculations, I got 23.96ms-2 as the vertical acceleration, then I minus it with 9.8ms-2 (gravitational acceleration as the two accelerations, I thought, should work against each other). Turns out, this is wrong and I should calculate the rest with 23.96ms-2 as the vertical acceleration. So my question is, why am I not supposed to minus 23.96 with 9.8? Because you can combine tangential acceleration and radial acceleration together to give a "resultant acceleration", but why is it not my case?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you'll have to post the original question to get a clear reply. All that comes to mind is that gravity had already, in some way, been accounted for.
 
Question 65
20150717_205325.jpg
 
As Puma suggested, the acceleration given in the problem is the actual acceleration of the rocket, not the thrust of the engine.
 
Thank you guys!
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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