What is the optimal type of acceleration for Newton's force-mass ratio?

  • Thread starter Thread starter deda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angular Linear
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the type of acceleration that best represents Newton's force-mass ratio, questioning whether it should be linear, angular, or another form. It emphasizes that angular and linear accelerations are distinct, with angular acceleration expressed in radians per second squared and linear acceleration in meters per second squared. The participants argue that while Newton's second law applies to both types of acceleration, there is no specific "electric" acceleration relevant to this context. The conversation also touches on the relationship between distance and force in a rotating system, suggesting that the rigid structure of the lever influences the acceleration type. Ultimately, the thread concludes that the choice of acceleration type depends on the specific motion being analyzed.
deda
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
Is there any restriction to what type of acceleration should give Newton’s force - mass ratio? Should it be angular or linear or electric or whatever acceleration? The fact that the rigid bar on which the weights hold IS rigid means that the weights are rotating around the center of the lever and the angle of rotation for each weight is same. So, this force - mass ratio either could or must be expressed thru this angle, which enables that ratio to be equivalent with the angle. This also enables that ratio to be equivalent with the angular acceleration. Angular acceleration is not same with the linear one. If it was then it could be same also with electric acceleration that I define like some Coulombs over seconds squared.

So what type of acceleration gives Newton’s force - mass ratio?

After all I don’t think even angular acceleration is necessary to simulate the motion in one system. Look:
D_1 = (random, random, random) - nonzero distance of first weight.
F_1 = (random, random, random) - nonzero force of first weight.
D_2, F_2 - distance, force of second weight.
n = random (1, 100) - ratio of the distances.
A = random (0, 359) - the angle of rotation same for all.
make D_2 = \frac {-n}{|D_1|} D_1
make F_2 = \frac {-|D_1|}{|D_2|} F_1
for i = 1 and 2 make
new (F_i) = cos(a) F_i - \frac {|F_i | sin(a)}{|D_i |} D_i
new (D_i) = cos(a) D_i + \frac {|D_i | sin(a)}{|F_i |} F_i
 
Physics news on Phys.org
deda said:
Is there any restriction to what type of acceleration should give Newton’s force - mass ratio? Should it be angular or linear or electric or whatever acceleration?
Newton's 2nd Law can be expressed for translational acceleration or angular acceleration (for rotational motion). For translational motion: a = F/m; for rotational motion: α = Torque/I.
Acceleration is a kinematic concept: there is no "electric" or other kind of acceleration.
 
Doc Al said:
Newton's 2nd Law can be expressed for translational acceleration or angular acceleration (for rotational motion). For translational motion: a = F/m; for rotational motion: α = Torque/I.
Acceleration is a kinematic concept: there is no "electric" or other kind of acceleration.
But there is a big difference between angular and linear:
-angular expresses in deg/sec^2
-linear in m/sec^2
What will decide which one I should use for Newton's froce - mass ratio?
 
deda said:
But there is a big difference between angular and linear:
-angular expresses in deg/sec^2
-linear in m/sec^2

Angular acceleration is expressed in radians/sec^2.

(Stupid equation here was deleted)

For a circle with a radius of 1 meter:
one radian is equivalent to 1 meter of arc length.

You see?
-Mike
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael D. Sewell said:
Angular acceleration is expressed in radians/sec^2.

For a circle with a radius of 1 meter:
one radian = 1 meter

You see?
-Mike
Ok, then I'll walk 500 radians to return home.
No man Pi radians is only equivalent (not equal) to 180 degrees.
 
Sorry, a bit cranky today are we?

Edited previous post.

Dimensional analysis. You see?
-Mike

P.S. I'd say that walking any more than pi radians(or in this case 3.14... meters) to return home would be wasteful. I think I could do it in 2 radii(2 meters).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
Back
Top