Draw the position time graph of a body moving with zero velocity.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a mid-term exam question requiring a position-time graph for a body moving with zero velocity. One student received full marks for drawing a graph parallel to the x-axis, while another student, who drew the graph coinciding with the x-axis, received only 0.5 marks. The teacher argued that the position = 0 is not defined, leading to confusion about the correctness of both answers. It is noted that while the second student's graph represents zero velocity, it lacks generality and specificity regarding starting position. The conversation highlights the importance of clarity in graph labeling and the potential for partial credit based on the question's wording.
johncena
Messages
131
Reaction score
1
In the mid term exam there was this question ,
Draw the position - time graph of a body moving with zero velocity.
I drew the graph (parallel to x-axis) and got full marks . And one of my friend drew the graph (coinciding x-axis) but , he got only 0.5 marks out of 2 . When he asked the teacher, she said that the position = 0 is not defined .But in many of the graphs we start from position = 0.So, what is the mistake in my friend's answer? Isn't his answer correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In a position-time graph any path parallel to the x-axis would be correct. The body could have started at 1m away and stayed there.
In a displacement-time graph (which is how it's normally stated) then it has to be along the axis because the displacement (ie distance from starting point) can't change from zero
 
So , my friend's answer is correct , isn't it ?
 
If the problem was as you stated, and did not elaborate, then it seems to me the teacher might be unreasonable. If the body happens to be at x=0 with zero velocity, then its path will be on the x axis. If the problem doesn't also ask you to specify the starting coordinates of the body, then your friend seems to have answered it correctly. It might also depend on whether or not your teacher had told the class that the starting position should be stated along with the position-time graphs, and that the necessity of doing so in exams was implied.
 
johncena said:
Isn't his answer correct?
The problem with your friend's answer is that it presumes a specific position, x = 0, whereas a more general diagram with unspecified x-coordinate does not. To his credit, his drawing does represent something with zero velocity; it's just not general enough. Depending on the exact wording of the question, I would give partial credit (perhaps full credit, if the wording was sloppy). (I, of course, would phrase the question more carefully.)
 
Unlabeled graphs are a "pet peeve" of mine. I assume the same is the case with your teacher and that your friend has probably been aware of that fact during the course of the class.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Back
Top