Why is there no acceleration in the southern/y direction?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the absence of acceleration in the southern direction within a physics problem involving a river's flow. Participants clarify that the river's constant speed of 2.5 m/s indicates zero acceleration, as no additional values for acceleration are provided in the problem statement. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding "velocity relative to the water," which reinforces the idea of constant speed leading to no acceleration. Questions arise about the necessity of considering acceleration when the problem does not imply it. Ultimately, the consensus is that the problem's parameters support the assumption of zero acceleration in both directions.
yashboi123
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
A river flows due south with a speed of 2.5 m/s. You steer a motorboat across the river; your velocity relative to the water is 5.2 m/s due east. The river is 650 m wide.

How far south of your starting point will you reach the opposite bank?
Relevant Equations
Δ x = v 0 t + 1 2 a t 2
v = v 0 + a t
Δ x/ Δt = v
The correct answer is obtained by rearranging Δ x/ Δt = v. However, I assumed there would be some acceleration in the y direction so I tried to use the kinematic equations. To find the time I simply rearranged Δ x/ Δt = v, assigning v=5.2 m/s and Δ x = 650. I assumed there is no acceleration in the x/east direction, but why is there no acceleration in the y/southern direction?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Think about what “velocity relative to the water” means.
 
so essentially relative to water means that speed is constant, in turn causing there to be no acceleration for the east direction. But why can we just assume the river has no acceleration?
 
yashboi123 said:
But why can we just assume the river has no acceleration?
Because the problem statement says that the river flows at a speed of 2.5m/s.
That implies an acceleration of 0.

Also, you're not given a value for acceleration, so if you aren't going to assume zero, what value would you assume?
 
I see, thank you.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Because the problem statement says that the river flows at a speed of 2.5m/s.
That implies an acceleration of 0.

Also, you're not given a value for acceleration, so if you aren't going to assume zero, what value would you assume?
Haha I thought we would have to find the acceleration ourselves then solve
 
Why do you keep saying "acceleration" ?
 
hmmm27 said:
Why do you keep saying "acceleration" ?
What else should I say.
 
yashboi123 said:
What else should I say.
Something relevant to the question, which has nothing that implies an acceleration.
 
  • #10
That's why I asked the question
 
  • #11
So, what do you see as implying the need for an "acceleration" ?
 
Back
Top