Is Meters per Second Squared a Measure of Velocity Increase?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Femme_physics
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the interpretation of meters per second squared as a measure of acceleration and its implications for velocity, particularly in the context of classical and relativistic physics. Participants explore concepts related to acceleration, terminal velocity, and the speed of light.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that meters per second squared indicates a constant increase in velocity over time, using 9.8 m/sec² as an example.
  • Another participant notes that this increase in velocity only applies until terminal velocity is reached.
  • A question is raised about whether an object can continue to accelerate until it reaches the speed of light, prompting a discussion about the limitations of mass in achieving light speed.
  • It is stated that nothing with mass can reach the speed of light, with further clarification that particles like electrons can approach but not reach this speed.
  • One participant suggests that discussions of acceleration and terminal velocity are often oversimplified and that the effects of drag complicate the situation.
  • A distinction is made between classical physics and relativistic physics, indicating that classical interpretations may not hold under relativistic conditions.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of general relativity, noting that one can be accelerating while maintaining a constant velocity on a planet's surface.
  • A reference is made to Bell's Spaceship Paradox to illustrate the complexities of constant acceleration in special relativity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between acceleration, terminal velocity, and the speed of light. There is no consensus on how to reconcile classical and relativistic interpretations of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of classical physics when discussing acceleration and terminal velocity, particularly in relation to relativistic effects and the presence of drag forces.

Femme_physics
Gold Member
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
1
"Meters second ² simply means that your velocity will increase by some value every second. For instance, 9.8 m/sec² means that your velocity will increase by 9.8 meters per second every second. If you continue to accelerate at that rate, after 10 seconds you'll be moving at 98 meters/second."
 
Physics news on Phys.org
true, but only until you hit terminal velocity
 
So once an object keeps accelerating until it gets to the speed of light and that its terminal velocity?
 
Nothing with mass can reach the speed of light.
 
But even electrons have mass, and even waves have particles. So, even they can't reach the speed of light?
 
Particles such as electrons can be accelerated to near light speeds but can't quite reach the speed of light.I think questions of this type have been discussed numerous times on this forum so my advice now is to first do some research here and elsewhere and come back when you have any specific problems.
 
G037H3 said:
true, but only until you hit terminal velocity
No, this has nothing to do with terminal velocity and your velocity doesn't increase at a constant rate in drag.
 
Dory said:
So once an object keeps accelerating until it gets to the speed of light and that its terminal velocity?
Your first post was fine, but it has nothing to do with terminal velocity and only works for speeds much lower than the speed of light.

For an object accelerating due to gravity from zero speed and a large height, without drag, the maximum speed (the speed you're going when you slam into the ground) is the escape velocity of the earth.
 
You pretty much have to disregard relativity for that statement all together. If he is talking about classical physics, it's fine. But once you throw in relativity, things become interesting.

When you are sitting on a surface of a planet, your velocity stays constant, yet according to GR, you are accelerating away from the planet.

But considering nature of the question, I would assume they want a purely classical answer, so none of it matters.
 
  • #10
I did http://www.dlugosz.com/files/PhysFAQ-edit/Relativity/SR/spaceship_puzzle.html" of that to illustrate Bell's Spaceship Paradox. In SR, you wind up with a hyperbola from constant acceleration in your own frame.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 138 ·
5
Replies
138
Views
9K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
26K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K