Linear Collision: Predicting Mass Motion

AI Thread Summary
It is possible to predict the subsequent motion of two point masses after a linear collision using their mass and velocity before the collision, assuming no energy is lost and the masses are equal. In a billiards context, this prediction holds true under ideal conditions. However, the challenge arises from the uncertainty of the energy status of the system post-collision. Accurate predictions require knowledge of energy conservation and the collision dynamics. Overall, while predictions can be made under specific assumptions, real-world factors may complicate the outcomes.
pakontam
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
it is possible to predict the subsequence motion of two point mass after a linear collision, given ONLY their mass and velocity before the collision?
thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Think about a billiards game. Would this be possible if your premise were true?
 
if you mean snooker, yes, it's possible to predict, based on the assumption that no energy is lost and the balls are of the same mass. (assume correct, is it?)
but u don't know the energy 'status' of the system after the collision, how do u predict?
 
Last edited:
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...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
824
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top