Moonchild
Physics Student
Posts: 13 
|
Post by Moonchild on Oct 29, 2014 19:15:37 GMT -6
Shouldn't there be a difference between m/s/s and m/s2? Because when we are using dimensional analysis (or unit analysis), we're told to flip it over because technically it's a fraction under a fraction so we bring the bottom s up [of m/s/s], which would result in ms/s, or m ( ), even thought it's m/(s*s). Sometimes I get confused when doing dimensional (or unit) analysis on converting km/hr/min into mi/hr2 because the km/hr/min is just written like that, even though you are supposed to state it as km/(hr*min). What's the reason behind the double divide? Does anyone else get me? Also, do you think it would be easier if it was just stated as (length)/(time*time)?
|
|
neurosoldier
Physics Student
Posts: 4 
|
Post by neurosoldier on Oct 29, 2014 19:25:36 GMT -6
|
|
Moonchild
Physics Student
Posts: 13
|
Post by Moonchild on Oct 29, 2014 19:27:04 GMT -6
My point exactly.
Oh yeah, and I added a poll.
|
|
adriennepoynter
Physics Student
Posts: 1
|
Post by adriennepoynter on Oct 29, 2014 19:50:15 GMT -6
Err, as I understand it, it's more like (m/s)/(s/1), so when you flip it it's (m/s)*(1/s)=m/s^2; s is the numerator of the denominator. (?)
|
|
Moonchild
Physics Student
Posts: 13
|
Post by Moonchild on Oct 29, 2014 19:58:45 GMT -6
Err, as I understand it, it's more like (m/s)/(s/1), so when you flip it it's (m/s)*(1/s)=m/s^2; s is the numerator of the denominator. (?) |
|
derekyou
Physics Student
Posts: 2
|
Post by derekyou on Oct 29, 2014 20:05:25 GMT -6
Richard, the m/s^2 is a mathematical shortcut so to be technical, that doesn't accurately portray the nature of acceleration. So making it length/(time*time) would mess things up because it's implying the y-axis could be either time. For example, mi/hr/sec wouldn't mean the same thing as mi/sec/hr because the first one is the mph increasing every second and the second one is mi/s increasing every hour.
|
|
Moonchild
Physics Student
Posts: 13
|
Post by Moonchild on Oct 29, 2014 20:23:53 GMT -6
Richard, the m/s^2 is a mathematical shortcut so to be technical, that doesn't accurately portray the nature of acceleration. So making it length/(time*time) would mess things up because it's implying the y-axis could be either time. For example, mi/hr/sec wouldn't mean the same thing as mi/sec/hr because the first one is the mph increasing every second and the second one is mi/s increasing every hour.
Did you write this? Or did Jamie do it? That "that doesn't accurately portray the nature of acceleration" statement. o_0 (So professional) |
|
derekyou
Physics Student
Posts: 2
|
Post by derekyou on Oct 29, 2014 21:17:09 GMT -6
Hey I wrote that.......
|
|
Moonchild
Physics Student
Posts: 13
|
Post by Moonchild on Oct 30, 2014 16:50:52 GMT -6
Cool! (Sorry for the insult question!)
|
|
), even thought it's m/(s*s). Sometimes I get confused when doing dimensional (or unit) analysis on converting km/hr/min into mi/hr2 because the km/hr/min is just written like that, even though you are supposed to state it as km/(hr*min). What's the reason behind the double divide? Does anyone else get me? Also, do you think it would be easier if it was just stated as (length)/(time*time)?
