Deriving Velocity from Distance-Time Graph: Validity and Applications

  • Thread starter Thread starter thomasc93
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Area Graph
AI Thread Summary
In a physics class focused on motion, analyzing a distance-time graph can reveal whether an object is moving with constant velocity or accelerating. When given a graph without an explicit function, performing a linear regression on known points is a valid method to derive the velocity function. The derivative of the distance function provides the velocity, and if this derivative is constant, it indicates no acceleration. Additionally, stating that the second derivative of the distance function yields zero acceleration is an acceptable response in an algebra-based physics context. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurately interpreting motion in one or two dimensions.
thomasc93
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'm a senior in high school and am currently in algebra/trig based physics. We are currently doing motion in one/two dimensions. The other day, we had a test, and we were given a distance-time graph of a boy walking home. With the graph, we were supposed to say if his velocity was constant or if he was accelerating/decelerating. The graph was a simple line (when I did a regression of various points, the calculator gave me s(t)=t/2), and I figured I could best explain this by taking the derivative of the function, since that would yield an acceleration function. Unfortunately, we were not given the velocity function, so I plugged in points from the graph and, as I said earlier, performed a linear regression, which yielded s(t) = t/2. By taking the derivative of this, I got v(t) = s'(t) = 1/2. I stated on my test that because the derivative of the velocity function was a constant, he was moving with a constant velocity (across the interval given) and therefore was not accelerating. I suppose I could have said a(t) = v'(t) = s''(t) = 0, hence giving an acceleration 0 m/s^2, but I didn't think about taking the second derivative of the distance function.

I suppose what I am asking here is the following two questions:

If I have a s/t graph and no s(t) function, is it actually valid to do a regression if I know points on the graph? Or would I just have to take a Riemann Sum?

and

Would saying that "when I took the second derivative of the distance function, it yielded 0 m/s^2" be a valid answer in an Algebra based physics class?

Thanks for your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
HEY, what you did thus far with taking teh derivative of the velocity fuction is correct in that you need aa second equation inorder to plug numbers into get points to produce an acceleration graph however if your in a class that is more concerned with teh mathematics of it you may only need to use the Reidman Sum in order to answer teh question being asked, without all the added steps?
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top