Understanding Relative Velocity: Explained in Simple Terms

AI Thread Summary
Velocity is defined as speed in a specific direction, and relative velocity is calculated by subtracting one object's velocity from another's. For two trucks moving towards each other at 70 m/s, the relative velocity of Truck A to Truck B is 140 m/s, indicating they are closing in on each other. This calculation can be interpreted differently based on the chosen frame of reference, leading to different sign conventions. If viewed from Truck B, Truck A's velocity can be expressed as -140 m/s, emphasizing the direction of movement. Understanding relative velocity involves recognizing these conventions and perspectives.
Aichuk
Messages
29
Reaction score
1
Umm, so as far as I understand velocity is speed in a direction. So if I'm going North at X Km/h and another guy goes south, he'll go at -X Km/h.

So anyways, the formula for relative velocity, for example V(AB) is V(A)-V(B). So let's say two trucks are going at 70 m/s towards each other (they're going to gonna crash :P).

So the velocity of Truck A relative to Truck B will be 70 m/s - (-70 m/s) = 140 M/S. Now since this is velocity, doesn't this imply that Truck A is going parallel alongside Truck B instead of going the opposite direction.

I'm really sorry if this is a stupid question, this is just a new concept and I don't fully understand it.
 
  • Like
Likes Maged Saeed
Mathematics news on Phys.org
No ,,

You can understand it in other way.

Imagine that there is someone on truck A that is moving with 70 km/h . so he will see the other truck 'B' , which is moving with 70 km/h , going with 140 km/h .

Thus , this is the velocity of the truck B relative to A.

v=va-(-vb)

On the other hand , imagine that someone ' let call him X ' is on truck A , that is going parallel alongside truck B and they are moving in the same velocity ,

Now , 'X' will see truck B not moving ! ,,

So the relative velocity is v=va-(-vb)=0.

this is the idea.

Is it understandable now,
:)
 
Aichuk said:
So the velocity of Truck A relative to Truck B will be 70 m/s - (-70 m/s) = 140 M/S. Now since this is velocity, doesn't this imply that Truck A is going parallel alongside Truck B instead of going the opposite direction.
As I understand the concern in the OP, this comes down to a question about sign conventions.

The relative velocity of A relative to B is +140 meters/sec if we stay with the convention that North is positive and South is negative. Truck A is moving northward at 140 meters/sec according to truck B.

Edit: This +140 m/s is the calculated "closing velocity" expressed in terms of the ground frame of reference.

But if we adopt the point of view of truck B, it is easy to shift to a convention where front is positive and back is negative. Truck A is moving backward at 140 meters/sec according to truck B.

Edit: This is -140 m/s if expressed in terms of the truck-B-relative frame.

forward and northward in opposite directions. Hence the reversal in sign.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Aichuk
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top