How Do You Calculate Speed and Time of a Falling Object with No Air Resistance?

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the speed and time of a falling object without air resistance, the gravitational constant of 9.79 m/s² is used. The distance to be traveled is 75 km, and the velocity can be derived from the change in gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy. The calculations involve using kinematic equations and integrating to find time, with the assumption that gravity remains constant over the distance. For more accurate results, advanced calculations may consider the diminishing effect of gravity at higher altitudes, but basic kinematics can provide a sufficient approximation. Understanding these principles is essential for solving the problem effectively.
bticu
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
THIS IS NOT A HOME WORK, THIS IS JUST FOR FUN?

I've been given a challenge by my grade 11 physics teacher and I can't make heads of tail of it, I’ve got the formulas but the numbers don't make sense.
If you went up 109 km (above sea level) and dropped a rock, what speed would it be traveling at and how long would it take to reach 34 km (above sea level). Air resistance can be ignored.
Gravitational constant
=9.79 m/second*second
This is the only formulas he gave me.
Where do I even start?
Distance:
Distance to be traveled = 109km - 34km
Distance to be traveled = 75km
I then started making a chart going by 0.5 second increments
Example:
{Time} (Acceleration) [calulation]
{0.5 sec} (39.16m) [9.79/(0.5*0.5)]
{1 sec} (9.79) [9.79/(1*1)]
{1.5 sec} (4.35) [9.79/(1.5*1.5)]
{2 sec} (2.44) [9.79/(2*2)]
{2.5 sec} (1.57) [9.79/(2.5*2.5)]
{3 sec} (1.09) [9.79/(3*3)]
So could someone tell me is this is right
After 3 seconds, the rocks velocity is 58.4 M/S and traveled a distance of 156 meters
I got the distance by taking the time
{Time} (Acceleration) <Current speed> [calculation]
{0.5 sec} (39.16m) <39.16 m/s> [39.16]
{1 sec} (9.79) <48.95 m/s> [39.16+9.79]
{1.5 sec} (4.35) <53.30 m/s> [48.95+4.35]
{2 sec} (2.44) <55.75 m/s> [53.30+2.44]
{2.5 sec} (1.57) <57.32 m/s> [55.75+1.5]
{3 sec} (1.09) <58.40 m/s> [57.32+1.09]
I got my distance traveled by summing up my current speeds and deviding the total by 2 (2 samples per second speed is in meters per second)
My total speed is the total of my currentspeed
First thing is that correct?
Second thing is this is correct is there a better way of doing this?
If this is not correct, what is the correct calculation?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Just want to say before I begin that this might not be rite, and there is a good chance that the graphics won't come out quite how I want them to, but do your best with it.
I think that I can do part of it, so here goes...
First, we know that the following is true.
F_g = \frac{GM_1M_2}{r^2}
and
F = M_2a
(Assuming that mass is constant)
Since air resistance can be ignored, you can work out the velocity from the change in gravitational potential to kinetic energy, so...
\frac{1}{2}M_2v^2 = \delta\frac{GM_1M_2}{r}
So, rearrange for v and let r be the difference in radius from the centre of mass of the earth, so r includes the radius of the earth.
Now for the time. From the two equations before, we get
a = \frac{GM_1}{r^2},
and using calculus, the following can be done...
dv/dt = \frac{GM_1}{r^2}
So, t can be found by integration (Let one of the limits equal zero) since we know what v is. Note, that the value of the radius is in metres, and takes into account of the radius of the earth, as before.
Hope this is rite, and that it helps.:biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You might start by looking at

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/1DKin/U1L5d.html

(or start at the beginning with)

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/1DKin/U1L5a.html

If you are given the acceleration of gravity, it's likely your teacher intends you to believe its constant. More advanced calculations are possible which take into account the weakening of gravity as one gets further away from the Earth, but they require calculus to fully justify.
 
have you learned the kinematics equations?
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top