Mechanics, Distance and speed question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gajan1234
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mechanics Speed
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the distance traveled by an object in free fall and the time it has been falling, specifically exploring the proportionality of distance to the square of time.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the kinematics of falling bodies and question the reasoning behind the proportionality of distance to time squared. There are inquiries about the appropriate kinematic equations and the implications of using different variable names.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the concepts, seeking clarification on the kinematic equations and their application to the problem. Some guidance has been provided regarding the relevant equations and the reasoning for focusing on specific relationships between variables.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of variable naming conventions and the need to adapt standard equations to fit the problem's context. The discussion also touches on the rejection of certain equations based on their relevance to the specific relationship being analyzed.

Gajan1234
Messages
46
Reaction score
2
What is the relationship between the distance y traveled by an object falling freely from rest and the time x the object has been falling?

The answer to this question is: y is proportional to x2

Can someone tell me how this answer is correct.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you familiar with the kinematics of falling bodies? (An example of constant acceleration motion.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Gajan1234
Doc Al said:
Are you familiar with the kinematics of falling bodies? (An example of constant acceleration motion.)
Yes, I understand that but I still do not understand why it is X^2. Can you please explain and thank you.
 
Gajan1234 said:
Yes, I understand that but I still do not understand why it is X^2.
They are just using, for some strange reason, "X" to stand for the time. Is that the concern?

Can you write the kinematic equation for distance as a function of time?
 
Doc Al said:
They are just using, for some strange reason, "X" to stand for the time. Is that the concern?

Can you write the kinematic equation for distance as a function of time?
s=ut+at^2/2 and s=(u+v)/2 x t there is a lot more
 
Gajan1234 said:
s=ut+at^2/2
That's the one you need. Since the object is falling from rest, what is u? And change the standard variable names to what they want in the problem, Y and X.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Gajan1234
Doc Al said:
That's the one you need. Since the object is falling from rest, what is u? And change the standard variable names to what they want in the problem, Y and X.
Thank you indeed but last question: why do we reject the other equations.
and also even if I make the initial velocity zero, then I would end up with 2s=at^2, t
 
Gajan1234 said:
Thank you indeed but last question: why do we reject the other equations.
Only because we want an equation that links distance to time. The other equations link other variables, so they won't help us here.

Gajan1234 said:
and also even if I make the initial velocity zero, then I would end up with 2s=at^2,
Sure, you end up with s=at^2/2 = (a/2)t^2.

Which tells you that the distance fallen is proportional to the square of the time. (You can replace s with y, and t with x, to make it match the variable names used in the problem statement.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Gajan1234
Thank you very much, great mentor!
 

Similar threads

Replies
39
Views
4K
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K