Distance traveled at end of second interval: 27m

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The total distance fallen by an object under constant acceleration at the end of the second interval is 20 meters, not 12 meters as initially guessed. This conclusion is derived from the kinematic equations of motion, specifically the relationship between distance and time intervals, which follows the pattern of odd numbers. Galileo's observations of falling bodies and the use of the formula for cumulative distance, ∑{(2n-1)^2}, confirm this relationship. The correct calculation involves recognizing that the distances for each interval are based on the odd number sequence multiplied by the distance of the first interval.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of kinematic equations for constant acceleration
  • Familiarity with Galileo's theory of falling bodies
  • Knowledge of mathematical series, specifically odd numbers
  • Basic grasp of Newton's laws of motion
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the kinematic equation for constant acceleration in detail
  • Explore Galileo's experiments with inclined planes and their implications
  • Learn about the mathematical derivation of the distance formula in physics
  • Investigate the relationship between time intervals and distance in motion
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and anyone interested in classical mechanics and the principles of motion under gravity.

Ki-nana18
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
If an object falls five meters during the first interval of time, what is the total distance fallen at the end of the second interval of time? (Galileo's Theory of falling bodies)

I know that at successive intervals of time the distance fallen is proportional to the odd numbers. So I suspect it to be 12, but apparently I'm wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The distance traveled by a body moving under constant acceleration is given by a well-known equation that is derived from Newton's laws. There is no need to guess! I would look into this equation...

Further comments

It doesn't really make much sense to me to break up the problem into discrete steps like this. Also, "proportional to the odd numbers" doesn't make much sense to me. Even more strangely, your guess, 12, is an even number.

EDIT: On second thought, once you know the formula, then you can break it up into steps (time intervals Δt) and you will see that the ratio of the *total* (cumulative) distance covered to the distance covered during the first time interval does depend upon the number (n) of intervals Δt that have occurred in a very specific way.
 
Galileo observed objects rolling down inclined planes. Using a pendulum as a timer, he observed that the distance of travel increased for every period of the pendulum, by consecutive odd number multiples of the distance traveled in the first interval. The kinematic equation for constant acceleration can be shown to agree with this observation, and it suggests a particular relationship between distance and time. (Calculate ∑{(2n-1)^2} where n is the interval number from n=1 to N, and then observe the dependence of N on n. The distance traveled is Nd, where d is the distance traveled in the first interval.) This is one way that Galileo determined the constant universal gravitational acceleration.

See, for example:
http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/experiment95/inclined_plane.html

Ki-nana:
It looks like you added 5m+7m=12m. That would be valid if the object traveled 5m in the third interval (and then 7m in the fourth interval). (5=2(3)-1, 7=2(4)-1) However, it travels 5m in the first interval, so the appropriate odd numbers are 1=2(1)-1 and 3=2(2)-1. Then, just multiply by the distance in the first interval.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
7K
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
15K