Why is changing direction called accelerating?

AI Thread Summary
Changing direction is considered acceleration because it involves a change in velocity, which can include alterations in both magnitude and direction. According to Newton's laws, any change in velocity indicates a non-zero acceleration, meaning that a net force must be acting on the object. This concept is illustrated by the physical sensation experienced during acceleration, such as being pushed back in a seat when a car speeds up or being thrown sideways during a turn. The discussion emphasizes that both scenarios demonstrate the effects of acceleration, reinforcing the idea that direction changes are indeed a form of acceleration. Understanding this principle is crucial for grasping the relationship between force, motion, and acceleration.
Skhandelwal
Messages
400
Reaction score
3
I understand that in form of vectors but conceptually speaking, I don't get it.

Btw, why do accelerating charges emit energy?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By the definition of the acceleration vector,
when, as time evolves,
there is a change in the velocity-vector [either in magnitude, in direction, or in both],
then there is a nonzero acceleration-vector.
 
In english?
 
An acceleration is a change in velocity. So, as robphy says, when there is a change in the velocity (either its direction or its magnitude) then there is a non-zero acceleration.
 
A change in direction of velocity is still a change in velocity, so there has to be an acceleration.
 
You can also think about it in terms of Newton's 1st law - without forces (which means accelerations, by the 2nd law, i.e. F=ma) things move in straight lines (or not at all). Therefore, if you're changing your direction of motion, you must be under the influence of a net force and therefore accelerating.

If you doubt this, consider the reaction to acceleration: you get thrown back in the opposite direction. So, if you accelerate forward in a car, you get thrown back against the seat, but if you take a sudden turn without changing speed, you get thrown to the side. Both cases are responses to acceleration.
 
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