Understanding Non-Zero Velocity vs. Non-Zero Acceleration

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maroc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Velocity Zero
AI Thread Summary
Non-zero velocity indicates an object's speed and direction, while non-zero acceleration refers to a change in that speed or direction. For example, a train at rest has both zero velocity and zero acceleration. When the train starts moving, it has zero velocity but non-zero acceleration as it begins to speed up. Once it reaches a constant speed, it maintains non-zero velocity with zero acceleration. Understanding these distinctions clarifies how motion is described in physics.
Maroc
Gold Member
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Not a homework question - Just wondering.

What is the real meaning of non-zero velocity compared to non-zero acceleration like i don't really understand the difference. Anyone care to explain?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Maroc said:
Not a homework question - Just wondering.

What is the real meaning of non-zero velocity compared to non-zero acceleration like i don't really understand the difference. Anyone care to explain?

non-zero *anything* just means that *anything* is not 0. Is there something more you're asking about?
 
Imagine you are on a train. If it is sitting at the station, not moving, that would be a zero velocity AND zero acceleration. The instant it takes off from the station, it will have a zero-VELOCITY, but a non-zero Acceleration. As it continues to accelerate it will have a non-zero velocity AND a non-zero acceleration. Once it reaches it's cruising speed, if there is nothing effecting the train, it will have a non-zero velocity but a ZERO ACCELERATION.

Let me know if this helps.
 
That is perfect guys. I was over thinking the concept.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top