Prove r(t) moves in a line, if a and v are parallel

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a point moving along a curve with constant acceleration and initial velocity moves in a straight line when the acceleration and initial velocity vectors are parallel. The problem involves analyzing the position function derived from these vectors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of parallel vectors for motion, questioning how to formally demonstrate straight-line movement. Some suggest using the position function and its relationship to the vectors involved.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, offering insights and questioning assumptions about the relationship between acceleration, velocity, and position. There is a recognition of the need for a formal proof, and some have proposed potential methods to show that the position function aligns with the definition of straight-line motion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of the terms in the position function, particularly regarding the presence of a squared term and its relation to linear motion. There is also a hint of confusion about the use of vector operations to demonstrate parallelism.

Sho Kano
Messages
372
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


A point moves on a curve \vec { r } with constant acceleration \vec { A }, initial velocity \vec { { V }_{ 0 } }, and initial position { \vec { { P }_{ 0 } } }

b. if \vec { A } and \vec { { V }_{ 0 } } are parallel, prove \vec { r } moves in a line

c. Assuming \vec { A } and \vec { { V }_{ 0 } } are not parallel, prove \vec { r } lies in a plane.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


part a asked for the position function, so here it is:
\vec { r(t) } =\frac { 1 }{ 2 } \vec { A } { t }^{ 2 }+\vec { { V }_{ 0 } } t+{ \vec { { P }_{ 0 } } }

my attempt at part b:
\vec { A } must be parallel to \vec { { V }_{ 0 } }, so \vec { A } =a\vec { { V }_{ 0 } }, where a is some constant.
so \vec { r(t) } =\frac { 1 }{ 2 } \vec { a{ V }_{ 0 } } { t }^{ 2 }+\vec { { V }_{ 0 } } t+{ \vec { { P }_{ 0 } } }
?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So how do you show that something moves in a straight line? (Hint: you already showed similar for ##\vec{A}## and ##\vec{V_0}##).
 
olivermsun said:
So how do you show that something moves in a straight line? (Hint: you already showed similar for ##\vec{A}## and ##\vec{V_0}##).
well I was thinking if it's acceleration and velocity are in the same direction, then it's already
moving in a straight line, but that's not a proof
 
What about position?
 
olivermsun said:
What about position?
I'm thinking a cross product between r and r prime? It should equal 0.

edit: maybe this doesn't work, b/c I'm left with P x V, and I don't know if they are parallel
 
Think more simply than that. We already know intuitively that A and V parallel means the object will move in a straight line. We just need to show this formally.

What does it mean to move in a straight line?

You formulated "##\vec{A}## parallel to ##\vec{V_0}##" as "##\vec{A}## = a##\vec{V_0}##," which shows that ##\vec{A}## and ##\vec{V_0}## lie on the same line passing through the origin.

Can you show that ##\vec{r(t)}## also satisfies the equation for a straight line, passing through some initial point (but not necessarily the origin)?
 
olivermsun said:
Can you show that →r(t)r(t)→\vec{r(t)} also satisfies the equation for a straight line, passing through some initial point (but not necessarily the origin)?
something like this?
let\vec { { P }_{ 0 } } =\left< 0,0,0 \right> \\ \vec { { r(t) } } =\frac { a{ t }^{ 2 } }{ 2 } \vec { { V }_{ 0 } } +t\vec { { V }_{ 0 } } \\ \vec { { r(t) } } =\left( \frac { a{ t }^{ 2 } }{ 2 } +t \right) \vec { { V }_{ 0 } } =k(t)\vec { { V }_{ 0 } }Some varying scalar k times V, which is straight line motion? Because it fits the standard vector equation for a line.
 
Seems reasonable, right?
 
olivermsun said:
Seems reasonable, right?
Yep, at first I thought it couldn't be a "line" because there was a t squared term. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
755
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K