Momentum and Pressure and Forces

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the relationship between force, pressure, and velocity, highlighting a perceived contradiction in the formulas. The user presents two equations: one suggesting that force is proportional to the square of velocity and another indicating direct proportionality to velocity. Clarifications reveal that F/A is proportional to v², not force itself, and emphasize the importance of understanding the dot product in work calculations. The conversation concludes with a note on formatting using LaTeX, which enhances the presentation of mathematical expressions. Overall, the thread effectively addresses the theoretical confusion surrounding these fundamental physics concepts.
Pawnag3
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
This is a theoretical question that I have, it might be somewhat elementary, or I might be missing something. Basically, we have two formulas:
1) We know that
P = F/A
By multiplying by d/d, we get:
P = Work/Volume
P = Energy/Volume
P = 1/2 mv2 / V
Therefore
F/A = 1/2 mv2 / V
And therefore, the force is equal to the velocity squared.
2) However, according to F*t = mv
We say that Force is directly proportional to velocity.

Do you see the contradiction?
Please Help

Note: I'm basically comparing the relationship of force with respect to velocity
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Pawnag3 said:
F/A = 1/2 mv2 / V
And therefore, the force is equal to the velocity squared.
2) However, according to F*t = mv
We say that Force is directly proportional to velocity.

Do you see the contradiction?

in the first sentence
<br /> \frac{F}{A}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{mv^2}{V}<br />
Now when you bring the area on the other side A/V becomes 1/length or 1/distance and cancels with one (length)2 of velocity ... hence there is only one velocity term left and hence F proportional to v.

Another mistake is you have considered F*d=Work but actually its the dot product between them.

Rem: F/A is proportional to v2 not force!
 
Umm, thanks, that clarifies everything :D
But I have one question:
1) How did you make the formatting look so nice? :D
I couldn't figure it out (but then again, I didn't spend too much time, under which heading is it? :P)
 
Pawnag3 said:
Umm, thanks, that clarifies everything :D
But I have one question:
1) How did you make the formatting look so nice? :D
I couldn't figure it out (but then again, I didn't spend too much time, under which heading is it? :P)

I used latex or tex as its called ... you can learn it here
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=386951
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top