Velocity divided by Acceleration gives distance?

AI Thread Summary
Velocity divided by acceleration does not yield distance, as the units do not align correctly. The discussion highlights a common confusion between the symbol 's' representing distance in kinematic equations and 's' as a unit of time in seconds. The correct relationship is that velocity multiplied by time equals distance, not divided by acceleration. Participants clarified that the initial misunderstanding stemmed from mixing units and symbols. Overall, the thread emphasizes the importance of correctly applying kinematic equations to avoid confusion in physics calculations.
Mongster
Messages
20
Reaction score
7
See I figured that since Velocity = m/s
Acceleration = m/s^2

If I have velocity divided by Acceleration
----> m/s ÷ m/s^2 = s
Relevant equations

Velocity --> s/t
Acceleration --> (v-u)/t
The attempt at a solution
My idea seems reasonable to me but somehow I couldn't apply this logic to related questions. Based on my understanding, velocity divided by acceleration gives distance as 's' but it don't seems applicable when I attempted questions with this approach.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mongster said:
. Based on my understanding, velocity divided by acceleration gives distance as 's' .

No it doesn't. You're mixing symbols with units, s is short for seconds. eg velocity is metres per second (m/s)
In the kinematic equations (SUVAT) 's' is used to represent distance (which has units of metres)

s is distance in metres (m)
u is initial velocity in metres per second (m/s)
v is final velocity in metres per second (m/s)
a is acceleration in metres per second squared (m/s2)
t is time in seconds (s)
 
Oh wait... I see the mistake now oh my, hahaha! It is really stupid... *cringing*
But thanks a lot for the detailed explanation there, appreciate it really!

Cheers!
 
Mongster said:
See I figured that since Velocity = m/s
Acceleration = m/s^2

If I have velocity divided by Acceleration
----> m/s ÷ m/s^2 = s
Relevant equations

Velocity --> s/t
Acceleration --> (v-u)/t
The attempt at a solution
My idea seems reasonable to me but somehow I couldn't apply this logic to related questions. Based on my understanding, velocity divided by acceleration gives distance as 's' but it don't seems applicable when I attempted questions with this approach.
That's only because the masses (m) canceled out. :rolleyes: o_O :confused:
 
Yes. s is correct. How long it takes to reach the velocity. "Long" being the "distance". It is something like a period vs frequency.

Don't confuse velocity x time = distance.
 
Dumisa Ngwenya said:
Yes. s is correct. How long it takes to reach the velocity. "Long" being the "distance". It is something like a period vs frequency.

Don't confuse velocity x time = distance.
Ummmm... What? How long it takes to reach the velocity... from what starting point?

Mongster even admitted that they confused the s (distance) with the unit s (seconds.) The problem was already solved 7 years ago, no need to add to it.

-Dan
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top