Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Zer0 on 21/05/2021 21:34:51
-
Hi All!
😊
9.8 m/s is 35.28 km/hr.
👍
But what about Acceleration of 9.8 m/s ?
What would the Speed of an Object be (?) That is constantly Accelerating at 9.8 m/s for say an Hour?
P.S. - Can't resist but ask,
What about 9.8 m/s/s ???
Any way in which value of " g " could be Converted into Speed?
-
You would probably need to multiply the rate of acceleration by the time of that acceleration. 1h is equal to 3600s - so, 9,8m/s/s * 3600s = 35280m/s. The same goes for acceleration due to gravity.
-
9.8 m/s is 35.28 km/hr.
m/sec and km/hr are speeds, yes. Speed is a scalar. Acceleration and velocity are vectors.
But what about Acceleration of 9.8 m/s ?
That's a speed. 9.8m/sec² is an acceleration rate, which is the rate of change of velocity (not speed). They're different things, so there's no direct relation. For instance, the ISS is constantly accelerating at about 9.4m/sec² downward but its speed relative to Earth remains essentially constant.
What would the Speed of an Object be (?)
Speed is a relation with another object or a frame of reference, and is the rate of change of spatial position relative to that other object or frame.
That is constantly Accelerating at 9.8 m/s for say an Hour?
P.S. - Can't resist but ask,
What about 9.8 m/s/s ???
The former is a speed, not a rate of acceleration. The latter is expressed in units of acceleration, and final speed depends on the chosen reference. I gave an example above where the speed is constant despite continuous acceleration.
Any way in which value of " g " could be Converted into Speed?
It can't any more than kg can be converted to meters. They're different things.
-
P.S. - Can't resist but ask,
What about 9.8 m/s/s ????
It accelerates or gains a speed of 9.8metres a second, every second.
Or every second it has a speed increace of 9.8ms
An increace of 9.8ms per second.
-
You would probably need to multiply the rate of acceleration by the time of that acceleration. 1h is equal to 3600s - so, 9,8m/s/s * 3600s = 35280m/s. The same goes for acceleration due to gravity.
It accelerates or gains a speed of 9.8metres a second, every second.
Or every second it has a speed increace of 9.8ms
You're both using the everyday language definition of acceleration, not the physics definition. This is a science forum, not a car-and-driver forum.
The physics definition (which you get if you google 'acceleration' is "the rate of change of velocity per unit of time". Whether a given acceleration results in an increase or decrease in speed (or neither) is a frame dependent thing, making speed and velocity coordinate values, not objective ones.
Proper acceleration can be measured by an accelerometer without any access to a coordinate system of choice, hence acceleration is an objective value, not a coordinate one.
-
You would probably need to multiply the rate of acceleration by the time of that acceleration. 1h is equal to 3600s - so, 9,8m/s/s * 3600s = 35280m/s. The same goes for acceleration due to gravity.
It accelerates or gains a speed of 9.8metres a second, every second.
Or every second it has a speed increace of 9.8ms
You're both using the everyday language definition of acceleration, not the physics definition. This is a science forum, not a car-and-driver forum.
The physics definition (which you get if you google 'acceleration' is "the rate of change of velocity per unit of time". Whether a given acceleration results in an increase or decrease in speed (or neither) is a frame dependent thing, making speed and velocity coordinate values, not objective ones.
Proper acceleration can be measured by an accelerometer without any access to a coordinate system of choice, hence acceleration is an objective value, not a coordinate one.
Sure, but I think that you're just overcomplicating things here. I concentrated on this particular question:
What would the Speed of an Object be (?) That is constantly Accelerating at 9.8 m/s for say an Hour?
And if we ignore the fact, that OP confused the units of speed and acceleration, my answer to this question is correct - to calculate the speed of an accelerating object afer a given time of acceleration (here 1 hour), we just have to multiply the acceleration rate by the time of that acceleration.
-
Any way in which value of " g " could be Converted into Speed?
It can't any more than kg can be converted to meters. They're different things
Multiply g by time.
[EDIT] And take the magnitude of the resulting velocity.
-
Thanks All for All Responses.
🙏
Please feel free to continue detailed discussions.
👍
(Personally my Query stands Resolved)
Speed of 9.8 m/s/s would be 35.27 km/hr.
To maintain the Rate of Acceleration, would mean to keep going faster per sec by 9.8 m/s/s.
1 Hour = 60 Mins = 3600secs.
So 1sec at 9.8 m/s..2sec at 19.6 m/s..& so on.
Hence value of 35280 m/s attained.
So that would be 127008 km/hr.
So after an Hour, maintaining the Rate of Acceleration, an object would attain a Speed value of 127008 km/hr.
(Corrections Requested)
Just to be reassured i Understand this...
If the clause was for 2 Hours.
Then 7200secs × 9.8 = 70560 m/s.
That's 254016 km/hr.(Speed)
(Corrections Requested)
Follow up Question :-
Would a Rocket Accelerating at 9.8 m/s in Deep Space devoid of Any Gravitational Fields be able to mimic the " g " effect on planet Earth?
P.S. - Perhaps a 10 meters cloth(fabric) could be converted into, or better let's say could be assumed to have an approx weight in kilogrammes.
✌️
( But Yes i do Completely Understand the Futility of trying to convert " g " into " s ". )
-
Would a Rocket Accelerating at 9.8 m/s in Deep Space devoid of Any Gravitational Fields be able to mimic the " g " effect on planet Earth?
Yes
-
Speed of 9.8 m/s/s would be 35.27 km/hr.
Speed of 9.8 m/s is 35 km/hr. Just fixing the units. That's how fast a rock hits the ground if dropped from about 5 meters up.
So after an Hour, maintaining the Rate of Acceleration, an object would attain a Speed value of 127008 km/hr.
(Corrections Requested)
See post 6. Assuming it was stationary at first and acceleration is in one consistent direction, then yes.
My ISS example was A) not stationary in the beginning, and B) acceleration changes direction over the course of an hour. It's speed remains unchanged through the entire hour.
Just to be reassured i Understand this...
If the clause was for 2 Hours.
Then 7200secs × 9.8 = 70560 m/s.
That's 254016 km/hr.(Speed)
Yes, with the same conditions.
Would a Rocket Accelerating at 9.8 m/s in Deep Space devoid of Any Gravitational Fields be able to mimic the " g " effect on planet Earth?
Per Einstein's equivalence principle, there can be no local difference. Nobody inside the rocket or the same ship parked on the ground would be able to tell the difference.
P.S. - Perhaps a 10 meters cloth(fabric) could be converted into, or better let's say could be assumed to have an approx weight in kilogrammes.
You want to convert meters into mass? If the density of the fabric per meter is known, then yes, you can do this.
-
I Feel Good!
👻
This OP makes me feel I'm Finally learning.
👍
Thanks to All providing inputs.
🙏
" The astronauts on board the International Space Station are accelerating towards the center of the Earth at 8.7 m/s², but the space station itself also accelerates at that same value of 8.7 m/s², and so there's no relative acceleration and no force that you experience. "
Acceleration is a Vector!
👍
The Fabric Analogy was Word Play.
Kilogrammes Cannot be converted into Metres, unless & until the Volume, Size & Shape isn't predefined.
& Vice versa Density is of paramount importance.
☹️
(Sorry)
I do have another pop up question if anyone's interested...
I've watched videos online of zipping fast rockets with a photon timer clock inside.
🚀 ⏳
Perhaps they were trying to explain Time Dilation with respect to SR.
(Not Sure)
Say...if one could Visualise an elevator in deep space devoid of gravity fields.
Say...if we assume it to be Stationary.
Now consider it starts moving, reaching 0.5c(50% speed of light)
(Hope I'm Allowed to flex my brain muscles in here, considering I'm in
" New Theories " section...Do Not wish to Offend Anyone)
🙏
Now...if that photon clock which is shown to be a single photon bouncing between two mirrors in those videos is taken into consideration.
⏳
a) If one mirror is placed at Top of the elevator, & another at bottom...
(Vertical Placement)
⏳
a(1) Then ' Photon ' while travelling downwards to the bottom of the elevator would reach Quicker?
(As frame is being dragged upwards)
a(2) ' Photon ' will take More time to hit the mirror at top of elevator, as distance required is continously stretching at 0.5c?
a(3) Finally, will the clock still measure No Change in ticks as downwards motion of ' Photon ' is it's own speed + 0.5c & it's upwards motion speed is own speed - 0.5c.
Hence No Time Dilation would be recorded/felt/mapped?
🤔
Also :-
b) What if that same clock is placed Horizontally?
(Can't find the damm horizontal clock emoji)
😑
Two mirrors placed on each side of the Elevator's walls...
Elevator starts moving and attains 0.5c.
b(1) Irrespective of Frame dragging moving upwards, the Distance travelled by the ' Photon ' from left to right to left would still remain a Constant.
(Correct? )
b(2) What about Light Bending Phenomenon!
If a whole Light Ray bends inside Einstein's Elevator, would that
' Photon ' not slowly follow a curvatured path towards the bottom of the elevator?
(Say if the mirrors were only 1mm in length, won't after a very very long time the ' Photon ' escape from within the clock n be set Free? )
P.S. - Wish to be Reassured.
0.25c or 0.5c or 0.75c...If this motion cannot be confirmed Relative to any Other Stationary Object, then the Motion is Meaningless?
(Like, how the heck would someone in a spaceship know what direction & speed the spaceship travels in if they do not have any other visual markers.)
&
The Bending of Light Phenomenon...is Not correlated with the Speed...Rather than the Change of Speed, it's the Acceleration that Matters.
(Correct?)
-
Thanks All for All Responses.
🙏
Please feel free to continue detailed discussions.
👍
(Personally my Query stands Resolved)
Speed of 9.8 m/s/s would be 35.27 km/hr.
To maintain the Rate of Acceleration, would mean to keep going faster per sec by 9.8 m/s/s.
1 Hour = 60 Mins = 3600secs.
So 1sec at 9.8 m/s..2sec at 19.6 m/s..& so on.
Hence value of 35280 m/s attained.
So that would be 127008 km/hr.
So after an Hour, maintaining the Rate of Acceleration, an object would attain a Speed value of 127008 km/hr.
(Corrections Requested)
Just to be reassured i Understand this...
If the clause was for 2 Hours.
Then 7200secs × 9.8 = 70560 m/s.
That's 254016 km/hr.(Speed)
(Corrections Requested)
Follow up Question :-
Would a Rocket Accelerating at 9.8 m/s in Deep Space devoid of Any Gravitational Fields be able to mimic the " g " effect on planet Earth?
P.S. - Perhaps a 10 meters cloth(fabric) could be converted into, or better let's say could be assumed to have an approx weight in kilogrammes.
✌️
( But Yes i do Completely Understand the Futility of trying to convert " g " into " s ". )
Okay, while it is true that you could maintain a situation of simulated gravity by accelerating a rocket at 9.8m/s^2, our present technology makes it impractical.
For even your 2 hr example, a modern chemical rocket* would require 6,452,639 kg of fuel per kg of rocket mass to achieve this.
* While we do have some type of propulsion systems that are more efficient and could reach that final velocity with less fuel, they have extremely low thrusts and can't even come close to 9.8m/sec^2 in terms of acceleration.
-
[]
You would probably need to multiply the rate of acceleration by the time of that acceleration. 1h is equal to 3600s - so, 9,8m/s/s * 3600s = 35280m/s. The same goes for acceleration due to gravity.
It accelerates or gains a speed of 9.8metres a second, every second.
Or every second it has a speed increace of 9.8ms
You're both using the everyday language definition of acceleration, not the physics definition. This is a science forum, not a car-and-driver forum.
The physics definition (which you get if you google 'acceleration' is "the rate of change of velocity per unit of time". Whether a given acceleration results in an increase or decrease in speed (or neither) is a frame dependent thing, making speed and velocity coordinate values, not objective ones.
Proper acceleration can be measured by an accelerometer without any access to a coordinate system of choice, hence acceleration is an objective value, not a coordinate one.
thanks for that half, if you could get onto Wikipedia and tell them it would sure help people's understanding, especially retards like me and the op. Also get onto Chris about all these clots asking questions, ban anyone who doesn't know every definition and get rid of anyone who dissent's, it will sure help understanding.
As acceleration, the unit is interpreted physically as change in velocity or speed per time interval, i.e. metre per second per second and is treated as a vector quantity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre_per_second_squared
Meters divided by Squared seconds, I hope that clears it up
Thanks again half
-
*SideNote -
HeeY JANUS!
😊
You might Not Believe this...
But i was Wondering exactly how much Energy would be required to sustain the continuous acceleration rate for the Rocket.
(Next thought was, Wish You were Around)
& Voila!
👻
Lucky Mee!
" a modern chemical rocket* would require 6,452,639 kg of fuel per kg of rocket mass to achieve this. "
👍
Although that to me sounds too much of fuel...i mean there isn't any Friction or Gravity Field or Air Resistance in Space.
🤔
(Won't just a simple constant burn keep accelerating the ship indefinitely? )
& YES!
I got your point on Low Thrust Propulsion Technology.
You meant Ion Thruster Drives.
Ionisation of Neutral Gas & extracting Electrons from Atoms creating a cloud of Positive Ions.
Ions accelerated by Electricity creating Thrust.
👍
(Wasn't aware of this Technology, but did read Your post on it in a different OP...perhaps it was discussing whether ' Rockets would ever be able to escape earth gravity in near future '. )
Did read a detailed article on it, they were thinking of using multiple Nuclear Reactors for multiple Ion Thrusters so that acceleration speed rate could be increased.
😊👍
Hello P.C. !
🙋
Sorry for misinterpreting the
' Image ' you posted in that male genatalia OP.
🙏
I realised later it was the representation of nerves in contrast to the human body.
(Very Nice & Informative image)
👍
& I kinda Agree with Your point on Basic Definitions & Basic Laws & Principles of Physics should be a Compulsion, before Anyone starts to Discuss things around here.
I shall keep that in mind Henceforth.
👍
(Time of Ingenious Minds on the Forum should Ideally Not be wasted on simplistic silly questions. & Also spoon feeding shouldn't be Encouraged )
✌️
Now as i dwelve further into the realms of Sciences...i feel stuff that i read before, like articles, wiki n Utube videos now are making it harder for me to Understand Phenomenons in Details.
(A bit of Unlearning & Relearning is required)
👍
Once Again, Thanks to All for All Responses.
😊
🙏
P.S. - ummm...J, i stopped with the Simple Algebra.
☹️
It was Funn in the beginning, but then they started shoving square roots into it.
😏
& Then it wasn't funn anymore.
😑