If i have no velocity in one direction then there is no

AI Thread Summary
If there is no velocity in a specific direction, it does not necessarily imply that there is no acceleration in that direction. For example, a ball at the peak of its vertical throw has zero velocity but still experiences gravitational acceleration. The relationship between velocity and acceleration is context-dependent and varies based on the specific problem being analyzed. Understanding this distinction is crucial when dealing with dynamics, especially in fluid mechanics. Therefore, a lack of velocity does not equate to a lack of acceleration.
a_helal
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
if i have no velocity in one direction then there is no acceleration ?
i deal with acceleration for sphere in fluid so i use spherical polar co ordinates (ρ,θ,Φ)
i have no velocity in Φ then there is no acceleration in Φ direction ?
i want to be sure
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well you can't make that conclusion...imagine you have a ball thrown vertically...at the top it has no velocity but has acceleration g...so what I mean is that the current velocity in certain direction might be 0 but that does not mean that there is no acceleration in the direction...it depends on the problem of course :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes a_helal
ok thanks
i understood
 

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 Solving Sub-Problem for OpenAI Lunar Lander v2: Seeking Advice
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Uniquely Defined Accelerations
Replies
3
Views
1K
B Why in two block systems do both blocks tend to have the same velocity?
Replies
6
Views
1K
I Does a rotating accelerometer moving linearly measure linear velocity?
Replies
47
Views
4K
I need opinions on a Projectile Motion problem that I made up
Replies
11
Views
2K
Why does the ball need to be rotating before colliding with the surface to skid?
Replies
8
Views
2K
I Units of a vector in a velocity vs time graph?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Relationship between Drag Force & Viscous Torque on USA Football
Replies
6
Views
1K
Solving for φ on an oscillation problem
Replies
17
Views
1K
I A rod that falls while rotating from the end of a table
Replies
2
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top