Horizontal motion and vertical motion are effectively independant

AI Thread Summary
Horizontal and vertical motions are independent due to the principles of vector analysis and Newton's second law (F = ma). The x and y components of a vector operate at right angles, meaning changes in one do not affect the other. In projectile motion, the vertical component is influenced by gravity, while the horizontal component remains constant in the absence of air resistance. This independence is supported by both theoretical understanding and experimental validation. Thus, it is mathematically and physically provable that horizontal and vertical motions operate independently.
Cheman
Messages
235
Reaction score
1
Is there a way to mathematically or physically prove that horizontal motion and vertical motion are effectively independant? ie - is it possible to derive this fact from, say, vectors?

I know that is is true - the parabola shape of projectiles wouldn't make sense otherwise, but is there a convincing proof for it? It would just allow me to accept this fact if i had a proof, and then i would be happy to use the procedure! :wink:

Thanks in advance. :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When you drop something from a building, does it move eratically all over the place, or does it fall down in a straight line? (assuming nil air resistance)

I think the fact they are independent is just postulate.

To get the proof, do some experimentation.

Everything is only theory until you get down to the lab to check it out.
 
But surely it can be prooved mathematically?
 
it can be prooven mathematically by the analysis of experiments. It seems simple to understand, the vector is bromen up into two compnenets one vertical and the other horizontal. To understand why this happens is like asking why is there inertia. Why do bodies with mass oppose acceleration. Nobody knows, but it's just common sence.
 
Cheman said:
Is there a way to mathematically or physically prove that horizontal motion and vertical motion are effectively independant? ie - is it possible to derive this fact from, say, vectors?


Yes. The motion is determined by Newton II, F = ma, which is a vector equation. Since the two vectors are equal, their individual components must be equal. The x and y components of a vector are completely independent of each other, since the x direction is 90 degrees to the y direction.
 
force is what causes change in velocity, assuming no air resitance... a projectile changes velocity in the vertical direction during its flight... due to gravity. The horizontal however is constant... that proves it right there more or less. The horizontal remains the same regardless of the motion in the vertical direction due to gravity... need more than that?
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top