1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Velocity & acceleration

  1. Aug 1, 2009 #1
    I heard it would be possible to have zero velocity & non zero acceleration (I know the opposite situation where there is velocity (constant), but zero acceleration). Could anyone please give me a clue on this?

    Thanks in advance
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 1, 2009 #2

    Nabeshin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Throw a ball upwards.
     
  4. Aug 1, 2009 #3

    tiny-tim

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Hi pttest! :smile:

    When you throw a ball vertically upwards, and catch it again on the way down, it has the same acceleration (g downward) the whole time, but zero velocity when it reaches the top. :wink:
     
  5. Aug 1, 2009 #4
    The prior post documents the only practical type case I can think of at the moment. A similar situation without velocity reversal could be a boat accelerating against a river current...as observed from shore.

    An abstract situation might be at the moment when a distant observer sees a spaceship accelerating towards him and when the velocity reaches the observed cosmic expansion speed at the location of the spaceship, the observer would measure zero velocity...

    How about an accelerating plane being overtaken by another higher fixed speed plane: at the moment the speeds are equal, velocity would be zero.

    but so what??
     
  6. Aug 1, 2009 #5

    DavidSnider

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't understand.. Velocity is the rate of change in position. Acceleration is the rate of change in velocity.

    If the velocity isn't changing how can the acceleration be anything other than 0?
     
  7. Aug 1, 2009 #6
    uhm, no. throwing a ball upwards does not produce zero velocity and nonzero acceleration. throwing a ball upwards constantly accelerates it at -9.8 meters per second per second.
     
  8. Aug 1, 2009 #7
    davidsnider is absolutely right.
     
  9. Aug 1, 2009 #8

    negitron

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    No, he's not. And neither are you.

    However, here's your chance to prove yourself: If the acceleration is 0 at the top of the ball's trajectory and 9.8 m/s2 on the way back down, at what point in time, t, does the acceleration become nonzero and what is the acceleration at that point?
     
  10. Aug 1, 2009 #9

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Er... the velocity is zero only for an instant. It continues to change!

    The ball being thrown up has a constant acceleration, which is downwards. It's velocity is changing, but changing at a constant rate! At some point, for a moment, it attains zero velocity.

    Zz.
     
  11. Aug 1, 2009 #10

    DavidSnider

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    OK, you can have an instantaneous velocity of 0, but at that point isn't your instantaneous acceleration also 0?
     
  12. Aug 1, 2009 #11

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Why? The velocity is changing!. That's the definition of it having an acceleration, which is -g!

    Zz.
     
  13. Aug 1, 2009 #12

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    I'm not quite sure why this is a problem, since this is standard high school physics.

    [tex]a = \frac{dv}{dt} = -g[/tex] (using the convention that upwards is positive),
    [tex]v = -g\int{dt}[/tex]
    [tex]v = -gt + v_0[/tex]

    where [itex]v_0[/itex] is the initial velocity, and we let this to be positive since it was tossed upwards.

    Now PLOT that as a function of t. You'll see that as gt grows in value, v will become smaller, until at some point, [itex]-gt + v_0[/itex] is zero! But look at how this was derived. It was derived for a constant acceleration of -g!! Throughout the whole motion, the acceleration is a constant!

    Zz.
     
  14. Aug 1, 2009 #13

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Try the oscillating motion of a mass in a simple mass-spring harmonic oscillator. At the maximum extension, the mass temporarily has a zero velocity, but the acceleration is maximum.

    Zz.
     
  15. Aug 1, 2009 #14

    DavidSnider

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I understand now. Thanks.
     
  16. Aug 1, 2009 #15
    The problem is simply the way in which you phrased this statement.

    Observe:

     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2009
  17. Aug 1, 2009 #16
    excuse me. Zz corrected what i was trying to say.l
     
  18. Aug 1, 2009 #17
    The problem here is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what acceleration means in relation to velocity. Consider a curve of velocity vs. time. At some time, t, the instantaneous velocity is zero. The acceleration is the slope of the velocity curve at time t. You are confusing a value on a curve with its slope.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Velocity & acceleration
Loading...