Why Do We Measure Velocity in Metres Per Second Instead of Seconds Per Metre

  • Thread starter Thread starter eagleye
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Velocity
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the measurement of velocity, specifically questioning why it is expressed in metres per second rather than seconds per metre. The original poster presents a philosophical inquiry into the implications of using seconds per metre as a unit of measurement.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the rationale behind standard velocity units, with some questioning the practicality of using seconds per metre. Others discuss the potential confusion that could arise from such a measurement system.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants sharing insights about the implications of using alternative units. Some express skepticism about the utility of seconds per metre in physics, while others reference specific scenarios where it might be applicable.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of the need for consistent definitions in physics, particularly regarding how velocity and acceleration are related. Participants also note that while seconds per metre could theoretically be used, it may complicate existing frameworks in kinematics.

eagleye
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I have just started physics course and I have a kind of philosofical question.

why do we measure velocity in metres per second and not by seconds per metre?.

for instance a man walking 0.5 metre per second, would'nt it be best to describe him as walking for 2 seconds per metre?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


 
Physics news on Phys.org
eagleye said:

Homework Statement


I have just started physics course and I have a kind of philosofical question.

why do we measure velocity in metres per second and not by seconds per metre?.

for instance a man walking 0.5 metre per second, wouldn't it be best to describe him as walking for 2 seconds per metre?

If we did as you suggest then the velocity of a slower person would be larger than the velocity of a faster person.
 
welcome to pf!

hi eagleye! welcome to pf! :smile:
eagleye said:
… for instance a man walking 0.5 metre per second, would'nt it be best to describe him as walking for 2 seconds per metre?

yes, we could …

we could define that as his deeps, for example, so that he has a deeps of 2s/m …

but then the faster he goes, the less his deeps is …

wouldn't that be confusing? :wink:

(oooh, also: velocity is a vector, so velocities have to add like vectors, and deepses won't add like vectors!)
 
Yes, I better understand now, but my question is - is there any reason why we shouldn't use my method (s/m - "deeps" like you said) and develop all the kinematics formulas according to it, is there anything wrong with it? because for my understanding, velocity was firstly defined to measure the rate in which distance is changing throughout time, but is there no use at all for knowing how much time passes until an object is completing one unit of a distance?
 
No one answered..
Again is there any use for seconds per meter in any field of physics?
Because I found somthing that uses this but I wan't to know if there are more uses for this and how to use it.
this is the link to how to determine the distance away a lightning storm from only the sound of thunder that uses seconds per meter.
http://askville.amazon.com/determin...nting-flash/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=1938252
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All they're saying is that:

time = distance / speed

Hence:

[tex]t_{sound} - t_{light} = \frac{d}{v_{sound}} - \frac{d}{c}[/tex]

So basically to compute the distance, you take delay between lightning and thunder and divide it by (1/v - 1/c). If you want to take this quantity with dimensions of 1/speed and call it something else, you can, but there is no real added benefit.

Edit: fixed equation

Edit: elaborated, fixed error
 
Then I understand that, to the best of your knoladge, there is no field in physics that uses a measurement of seconds per meter? (the one we called 'dibs' in this post)
 
eagleye said:
Then I understand that, to the best of your knoladge, there is no field in physics that uses a measurement of seconds per meter? (the one we called 'dibs' in this post)

correct
off of the top of my head I can't think of any reason why using units of seconds per meter would simplify anything
 
eagleye said:
Then I understand that, to the best of your knoladge, there is no field in physics that uses a measurement of seconds per meter?
There may be occasions where it is convenient to describe speed in these terms, but it would mess up other things if you defined velocity in sec/m. For example, acceleration is defined as time-rate-of-change of velocity.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
11K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K