Determining Future Position of Uniform Circular Motion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the future position of an object undergoing uniform circular motion, particularly how different starting positions affect calculations. Participants explore the mathematical formulation of the motion, including the manipulation of equations to account for varying initial conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about how a different starting position affects calculations, specifically questioning the impact of starting at (0.147i + 0.095j) instead of (0.175i + 0j).
  • Another participant suggests that the formula for position needs to be manipulated to accommodate the new starting point.
  • Some participants discuss the general form of the formula, indicating that it can be adjusted by finding an appropriate t0 to match the desired initial position.
  • There is a suggestion that using a rotation operator could provide an alternative method for representing the system in rotated coordinates.
  • One participant raises a question about whether the derived equations are valid for all quadrants of the circle, proposing different formulas for different quadrants.
  • Another participant challenges this view, questioning the continuity of the proposed formulas at the boundaries between quadrants.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the starting position affects the calculations, but there is disagreement regarding the validity of different formulas for different quadrants and the continuity of these formulas at the boundaries.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about how to manipulate the equations to find future positions, and there are unresolved questions about the continuity of the formulas across different quadrants.

  • #31
So you've found a solution not using branching, but indeed adapting t0. That seems to be correct indeed.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Thank you very much for the in-depth explanation, I think most of it made sense and it reflects what I was seeing as I attempted the branching method.

I definitely prefer the second method of adapting t0 as it's a lot simpler. I've also tried it with neat and messy angles like 74° and it always seems to produce the correct results. Phew!

So I take it this second method can be reliably trusted?

Also, any idea how to adapt this for clockwise motion? Is it simply a case of flipping the "polarity" variable?
 
  • #33
Cato11 said:
Also, any idea how to adapt this for clockwise motion?
I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader ;)
 
  • #34
Arjan82 said:
I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader ;)

Ah.. fair enough!

But regarding the second method of adapting t0. Do you believe this to be a reliable one? You mentioned with the first method of branching that messy things could be going on.
 
  • #35
I mentioned that because I could not oversee the consequences of the combination of the two t0's you've computed and all variations of the general formula you've used in the first solution (maybe one quadrant ran backwards for all I knew) I didn't check that.

But you can check that yourself. If the starting points in all quadrants give correct results, if small additions in the starting position (1 degree, say) give the same difference in the future point, and if the connections are continuous (so at both sides of the point when Y of the startingpoint flips sign) then your solution works.

You can also try to reason why using the polarity works by writing down examples for all quadrants and see what the computation of t0 yields, looking at the range of acos(). Then it should be easy to see why the polarity works (if indeed it does, I didn't check it).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Cato11
  • #36
Thank you Arjan. I have done some pretty extensive testing today, checking for continuity as Y flips sign and also that small and large variations in the start point propagate to the future point. The updated function has yet to make a mistake so I'm happy to report that the solution works.

It took a while but got there in the end! Thank you again for all of your help
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Arjan82

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
663
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K