Cool classical physics proof I came up with today

AI Thread Summary
A user shared a self-developed proof related to classical physics, emphasizing that their equation for average velocity, valid only under constant acceleration, contains errors. They highlighted that the correct approach involves calculus, specifically integrating the velocity function to find distance. The user acknowledged a mistake in their initial expression for average velocity and noted that their understanding of integration is still developing. They expressed gratitude for the feedback received on their work. Overall, the discussion centers on the importance of calculus in accurately describing motion in physics.
realfuzzhead
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Check out this pdf on this website. No signing up or anything, It took me the better half of today to do this. Anyways, this might be well known for people above my basic physics knowledge, but I came up with this all by myself knowing a few simple equations


http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3569845/fun-with-physics-pdf-february-18-2012-7-59-am-579k?da=y
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Equation 1. on page 6 is wrong.

V_{avg} = \frac {V_0 + V} {2}

is only valid if the acceleration is constant.

The right result is easy to find with calculus by integrating v = (v_0 + at + (1/2)Jt^2).
The distance is equal to the area under this curve.
(of course Archimedes found the area under a parabola in the 3rd century BC without calculus)
 
That's pretty good! Unfortunately an error creeps in on page 5: I will use your numbering...

p5,1) This expression for Vave is only true when V is increasing linearly i.e. when its acceleration is constant.

p5,3) Again because acceleration is not constant this is not the right equation. Instead we need D = D_0 + \int V(t)dt. From what you have written I am not sure if you have come across integration yet: if not, it is enough to know for now that it is the inverse of differentiation.

Now we already have V(t) = V_0 + A_0t + \frac 1 2 Jt^2, integrating this we have D(t) = D_0 + V_0t + \frac 1 2 A_0t^2 + \frac 1 6 Jt^3.

Note that we can check this by differentiation:
\begin{align}D(t) &amp;= D_0 + V_0t + \frac 1 2 A_0t^2 + \frac 1 6 Jt^3 \\<br /> V(t) &amp;= \frac d{dt} D(t) = V_0 + A_0t + \frac 1 2 Jt^2 \\<br /> A(t) &amp;= \frac d{dt} V(t) = A_0 + Jt \\<br /> \frac d{dt} A(t) &amp;= J\end{align}
 
THANK YOU GUYS! Damnit.. I thought that last part was a little bit to easy. I just started calculus this week so I have not learned integration yet..
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top