Velocity vs. Time Graph: Analyzing Slope Below X-Axis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gear2d
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Graph Velocity
AI Thread Summary
In a velocity vs. time graph, a slope below the x-axis indicates negative velocity. When analyzing the segment from 3 seconds at -30 m/s to 6 seconds at 0 m/s, the velocity is increasing, which means the acceleration is positive. This is because acceleration is defined as the time derivative of velocity, represented by the gradient of the curve. Thus, as the velocity transitions from negative to zero, the acceleration is indeed positive. Understanding this relationship is crucial for correctly interpreting the graph.
Gear2d
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
I have question about the velocity vs. time graph about a slope that is below the x-axis. I was doing a problem about this:

I have the x-axis as my time and y-axis as my velocity. Now at 3 seconds where velocity is -30 m/s to 6 seconds where velocity is 0 m/s, is acceleration "+" because it is in the same direction as velocity (since velocity is getting more positive and positive, -30, -25, -15,...)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Becuase t=6 seconds occurs later than t=3 seconds you should use v(3)=-30 as the *initial* velocity and v(6)=0 as the *final* velocity. Correct that and then you'll get the correct answer. Makes sense right?
 
Gear2d said:
I have question about the velocity vs. time graph about a slope that is below the x-axis. I was doing a problem about this:

I have the x-axis as my time and y-axis as my velocity. Now at 3 seconds where velocity is -30 m/s to 6 seconds where velocity is 0 m/s, is acceleration "+" because it is in the same direction as velocity (since velocity is getting more positive and positive, -30, -25, -15,...)?
Acceleration can be defined as the time derivative of velocity, which is the gradient on the velocity - time curve. So yes, if the gradient of the curve is positive (i.e. velocity is increasing) then the acceleration is positive.
 
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...
Back
Top