Simply divide the distance traveled by the time.
They are incompatible and can't be converted from one another. In order to get a velocity you would also need the time spent to cover the distance. Then you can use the formula distance/time=velocity. For example if you travelled 120 miles in 3 hours, you've travelled at 40 mph. If you have covered 200 kilometers in 4 hours, you've travelled 50 kilometers per hour.
15 miles per hour,south
He travelled to Mexico in 1535, and from there, he travelled overland to what is now the south-west of America in 1540.
(79 km/hr) x (5.7 hr) = 450.3 kmThat's the displacement, if the direction of the velocity was constant throughout the trip.
Velocity is speed and direction. The velocity would be zero because the 50 miles N cancel the 50 miles S. The speed is 100 mi/5 h = 20 mph.
South, as from the North Pole, the only possible direction is south.
What I mean is can you have a negative velocity followed by "south". (i.e. -7.5 m/s south) or would the velocity be 7.5 m/s south? My opinion is that the negative sign is not necessary since south is already "negative" so you would be canceling out the negative if you have the sign making it 7.5 m/s north.
Paddington Bear.
An object's velocity is it's speed plus direction. example: 55mph south Hope this helps:)
That is incorrect. The distance travelled north cancels out the distance travelled south. Therefore - he only travels three blocks east.
Was Alfred famous for travelling? He ruled from South-western England but travelled all around England, especially the south
mainly India, but travelled to south Africa for quite a few years.