Acceleration is given by the equation v-u/t, whereby v is the final velocity of a body, u is the initial velocity and t is the time. So for there to be acceleration, there has to be a change in initial velocity (the starting speed of the body) and the final velocity of the body or if there is no change it would be 0/t and hence the acceleration will be 0. And we know that with a change in speed there has to be a change in displacement i.e. s=d/t. So to sum all this up with an increase in acceleration there is an increase in distance. But this is a very tricky question because you asked about displacement and since displacement is a vector quantity, it has both magnitude and direction. So if a body accelerates forward, then its acceleration is directly proportional to its displacement. However, if the body stops and starts accelerating backwards, it becomes a whole new different story. Given that displacement has direction, if the body moves backwards, then the displacement will be negative, but the acceleration positive. So displacement is directly proportional to acceleration ONLY when a body is moving forwards, but displacement is indirectly proportional to acceleration when a body is moving backwards from it's point of rest. But for distance, given that it is a scalar quantity, it only has magnitude so it is not affected by the direction of movement of the body. So distance is directly proportional to acceleration when a body is moving both forwards and backwards.
It isn't. It is proportional to acceleration. This follows from momentum conservation which is a deeper law than Newton's second law (which implies the same of course, but Newton's second law is strictly not true at high speeds).
To give an even deeper, and possibly incomprehensible but still true, answer: momentum conservation is a result of the requirement that the laws of nature are the same at every point in space.
Acceleration is directly proportional to displacement in simple harmonic motion.
There are perhaps two good explanations for this, one technical and one intuitive.
First let us define simple harmonic motion.
When a particle moves in a straight line so that the displacement of the particle with time is exactly given by a simple sine (or cosine) of time, then that it is simple harmonic motion.
For example: x=A sine (w t) .
Answer 1: (In two steps)
(a) If we know position as a function of time, we know velocity is the time rate of change of position.
v = w A cosine (w t)
(b) If we know velocity as a function of time, we know acceleration is the time rate of change of velocity.
a = -w2 A sine (w t)
* So, acceleration is proportional to displacement, and a(t)=-w2 x(t).
Answer 2: (In three steps)
(a) Simple harmonic motion occurs when a mass on an ideal spring oscillates.
(b) From Newton's laws, we know that acceleration is directly proportional to force.
a=F/m
(c) We know the force of an ideal spring is proportional to displacement (F=-kx).
* So, acceleration is proportional to displacement, and a(t)= -k/m x(t).
(This also tells is that w2 =k/m.)
As a result, "acceleration is directly proportional to displacement in simple harmonic motion."
No. Distance is, but displacement has no direct relation to velocity.
At the point of maximum displacement, since the two are directly proportional.
No, an object's acceleration is inversely proportional to an objects mass.
force is directly proportional to acceleration and acceleration is inversely proportional to mass of the body
Acceleration is directly proportional to displacement in simple harmonic motion.There are perhaps two good explanations for this, one technical and one intuitive.First let us define simple harmonic motion.When a particle moves in a straight line so that the displacement of the particle with time is exactly given by a simple sine (or cosine) of time, then that it is simple harmonic motion.For example: x=A sine (w t) .Answer 1: (In two steps)(a) If we know position as a function of time, we know velocity is the time rate of change of position.v = w A cosine (w t)(b) If we know velocity as a function of time, we know acceleration is the time rate of change of velocity.a = -w2 A sine (w t)* So, acceleration is proportional to displacement, and a(t)=-w2 x(t).Answer 2: (In three steps)(a) Simple harmonic motion occurs when a mass on an ideal spring oscillates.(b) From Newton's laws, we know that acceleration is directly proportional to force.a=F/m(c) We know the force of an ideal spring is proportional to displacement (F=-kx).* So, acceleration is proportional to displacement, and a(t)= -k/m x(t).(This also tells is that w2 =k/m.)As a result, "acceleration is directly proportional to displacement in simple harmonic motion."
Yes, that is correct.
At the point of maximum displacement, since the two are directly proportional.
No, an object's acceleration is inversely proportional to an objects mass.
If the displacement varies as the cube of time then acceleration is linear in time.In physics and engineering, the time rate of change of acceleration is called "jerk."(See related link.)Here is the math.1. We are given that the displacement of a particle is proportional to the cube of the time.We put this statement into the form, d= c * t3.2. The velocity of an object is the time rate of change of position (displacement).v=3c*t23. The acceleration of an object is the time rate of change of the velocity.a=6c*t 4. The acceleration is then linear in time and the jerk is, j=6c.
force is directly proportional to acceleration and acceleration is inversely proportional to mass of the body
Force is directly proportional to mass provided the acceleration is constant.
directly proportional because force=(mass)(acceleration) (f=ma)
Acceleration is directly proportional to displacement in simple harmonic motion.There are perhaps two good explanations for this, one technical and one intuitive.First let us define simple harmonic motion.When a particle moves in a straight line so that the displacement of the particle with time is exactly given by a simple sine (or cosine) of time, then that it is simple harmonic motion.For example: x=A sine (w t) .Answer 1: (In two steps)(a) If we know position as a function of time, we know velocity is the time rate of change of position.v = w A cosine (w t)(b) If we know velocity as a function of time, we know acceleration is the time rate of change of velocity.a = -w2 A sine (w t)* So, acceleration is proportional to displacement, and a(t)=-w2 x(t).Answer 2: (In three steps)(a) Simple harmonic motion occurs when a mass on an ideal spring oscillates.(b) From Newton's laws, we know that acceleration is directly proportional to force.a=F/m(c) We know the force of an ideal spring is proportional to displacement (F=-kx).* So, acceleration is proportional to displacement, and a(t)= -k/m x(t).(This also tells is that w2 =k/m.)As a result, "acceleration is directly proportional to displacement in simple harmonic motion."
Yes, that is correct.
When the acceleration is directly proportional to the displacement from a fixed point and always directed towards that fixed point then such an oscillation or vibration is said to be simple harmonic
Newtons 2nd law means that when force is applied on any object an acceleration is produced in the direction of force which is applied on it. The acceleration produced in the object is directly proportional to the force applied on the object i.e. if force increases then acceleration will also increase and the acceleration is inversely proportional to the mass of object i.e. if the mass of the body decreases then acceleration will increase. If force is represented by 'F', acceleration by 'a' and mass by 'm' then a is directly proportional to F a is inversely proportional to m
The Circumference of a circle is directly proportional to the diameter. The constant of proportion is 'pi = 3.141592....'. Another one is force is directly proportional to mass. The constyant of proportion is acceleration.
Acceleration is directly proportional to the net force. Net force is equal to the mass times acceleration, taking this into consideration we can clearly see that acceleration is inversely proportional to mass.By Armah Ishmael Ryesa