Proof and challenge about projectile motion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving claims related to projectile motion, with a user sharing their own proof in a PDF format. They invite others to review their work and identify any errors, while also including a challenging question for engagement. Participants emphasize the effectiveness of using conservation of energy to understand projectile motion, noting the symmetry and parabolic nature of the equations involved. The conversation highlights the importance of recognizing that gravitational potential energy remains constant when non-conservative forces are neglected. Overall, the thread focuses on the mathematical principles underpinning projectile motion and the exploration of these concepts through collaborative proof verification.
Ikari
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hey guys, its me again! This time, I was reading about projectile motion in my textbook, and noticed that they didn't prove some of the claims presented about this topic. So I decided to try and prove it myself as a challenge. I included it here as a PDF.

It's a pretty short and simple proof, so if you are feeling bored and want to help me out, please check it and see if you can find a problem!

I also included a challenging question at the end of the proof to test you guys/provide some mild entertainment. (Again, probably only appropriate for a period of extreme boredom...)
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
I can do your initial proof plus your "challenging question" in about 4 or so lines using conservation of energy.
 
Quite frankly I'm impressed you managed to follow your own work in this... I've spent the last 30 minutes or so trying to follow your math, but I can't make much sense of it. All I can say is that I agree with boneh3ad that conservation of energy is the easy way to go.

Just write out the equation of motion for the projectile, and you will see that it is quite symmetric - parabolic... hence the t^2 term. This happens frequently in mechanics problems when you neglect non-conservative forces.
 
Last edited:
For a gravitational potential of mgh, this potential doesn't change explicitly with time. Therefore the energy of the object is constant. (The explanation for this requires doing some lagrangian mechanics).
Therefore, 1/2 m v^2 + mgh = constant
So if the object has the same height, its velocity must have the same magnitude.
 
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