Gravity's Effect on Height: Function Explained

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nhmllr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Gravity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formulation of a function that describes height as affected by gravity over time. Participants explore the correct mathematical expression for height in the context of projectile motion, considering initial velocity and gravitational acceleration.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes two potential functions for height as a function of time, questioning their correctness.
  • Another participant asserts that both proposed functions are incorrect and provides the correct expression: height = initial upwards velocity * time - 0.5 * gravity * time^2.
  • A third participant refines the correct expression by including initial height and clarifying the direction of motion relative to gravity.
  • There is a repeated assertion of the correct formula, emphasizing the importance of the 1/2 factor in the equation.
  • One participant expresses curiosity about the reason for the 1/2 factor, suggesting it may relate to integrals.
  • Another participant explains that the 1/2 factor arises from integrating constant acceleration to derive velocity and then position.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the correct formulation of the height function, with some variations in expression. However, there is an ongoing exploration of the reasoning behind the mathematical formulation, particularly the significance of the 1/2 factor.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about constant acceleration and the initial conditions of motion. There are also references to specific mathematical steps that are not fully resolved in the conversation.

nhmllr
Messages
183
Reaction score
1
If I were to create a function for height affected by gravity (as a function of time) would it be
height = initial upwards velocity * time - gravity * time2
OR
height = initial upwards velocity * time - 2 * gravity * time2
OR something else, and why?
I thought it would be the first one, but after trying to solve some problems, upon checking my work it seems like it would be the second one.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Good answer. But it has small differences.
height = initial height + initial upward velocity * time - 0.5* gravity * time^2
where moving direction is the counter gravity direction.
 
Doc Al said:
Neither of those are correct. The correct expression would be:
height = initial upwards velocity * time - 0.5 * gravity * time2

(Review the https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=905663&postcount=2".)

Ah. After reviewing my work, it turns out that I should have meant to divide by two instead of multiply.
In anycase, what is the reason behind that 1/2? What's it doing that makes it right? It probably has something to do with integrals, because it's in the t2 term, but what?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nhmllr said:
It probably has something to do with integrals, because it's in the t2 term, but what?
The acceleration is constant. Integrating once gives the velocity:
v = v0 + at

A second integration gives the position:
x = x0 + v0t + 1/2at2

Setting x = height, x0 = 0, and a = -g, gives the equation you need:
h = v0t - 1/2gt2
 
Doc Al said:
The acceleration is constant. Integrating once gives the velocity:
v = v0 + at

A second integration gives the position:
x = x0 + v0t + 1/2at2

Setting x = height, x0 = 0, and a = -g, gives the equation you need:
h = v0t - 1/2gt2

Thanks, I get it now
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K