Is this a valid Kinematics Equation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter yosimba2000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kinematics
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the validity of a kinematics equation involving acceleration, velocity, and position. It highlights a misunderstanding regarding the relationship between velocity change and position change, particularly when velocity is constant. The equation dv/dt = (d/dt)(dx/dt) is debated, with clarification that dv/dt should be interpreted as the derivative of velocity with respect to time. The conclusion emphasizes that while the math appears correct, the interpretation of the terms was initially flawed. Understanding these relationships is crucial for accurate kinematic analysis.
yosimba2000
Messages
206
Reaction score
9
a = dv/dt
a = (d/dt)(dx/dt)
dv/dt = (d/dt)(dx/dt)
dv = dx/dt
dx = dvdt
Xf - Xi = (tf-t0)*dv

Is this a valid equation? It doesn't seem right to me since if velocity change is 0, then dv = 0, meaning your change in position is 0. That shouldn't be right, as even though your velocity change is 0, you still have velocity meaning you are moving. But the math seems like it works out.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
yosimba2000 said:
dv/dt = (d/dt)(dx/dt)
dv = dx/dt
This step is wrong. Integrating both sides gives ##v = dx/dt## which is the definition of ##v##.
 
Oh, right! I should have read dv/dt as (d/dt)(v).
 
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...
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