Proof and challenge about projectile motion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proofs and challenges related to projectile motion, specifically addressing claims made in textbooks and exploring alternative methods of proof. Participants engage with mathematical reasoning and concepts from mechanics, including conservation of energy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a proof of claims about projectile motion and invites others to critique it, including a challenging question at the end.
  • Another participant suggests that the initial proof and the challenging question can be addressed using conservation of energy in a concise manner.
  • A different participant expresses difficulty in following the original proof and agrees that using conservation of energy is a simpler approach.
  • One participant discusses the constancy of gravitational potential energy and its implications for the velocity of the projectile, referencing Lagrangian mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the validity of the original proof, as some participants find it difficult to follow while others propose alternative methods. Multiple competing views on how to approach the problem remain present.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the symmetry of projectile motion and the role of non-conservative forces, but do not resolve the implications of these factors in the context of the original proof.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K