Solving h=1/2gt^2: Questions Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter atypical
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the equation h = 1/2gt^2, which describes the height of a free-falling object. Participants clarify that the coefficient 1/2 accounts for the changing velocity of the object due to constant acceleration, as the average velocity is half of the final velocity. The equation is derived from kinematic principles, specifically integrating velocity over time to account for acceleration. It is emphasized that this equation applies when the object starts from rest, where initial vertical velocity is zero. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between acceleration, velocity, and displacement in physics.
atypical
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
So h=1/2gt^2. I am having some trouble understanding this equation.
Here are my questions:
1. I know you get two completely different answers if you plug in a set value, but why can't you measure height of a free-falling object by multiplying the number of seconds^2 times 9.8m/s^2?
2. Is the coefficient 1/2 because you are compensating for the seconds^2?
3. Does the equation h=1/2gt^2 result because acceleration is the second derivative of position?
4. Why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1. So you're saying h = gt^2 instead of 1/2gt^2? Well, you start with constant acceleration, g. Starting from rest, this means your velocity is gt. How do you get the distance traveled from the velocity? IF the velocity were constant, you would just take velocity * time. But your velocity is changing over time, so at earlier stages, 1 second of traveling doesn't cover as much ground as it does later. The right way to find the height would be perform the integral

\int v \,dt = \int gt \,dt = \frac{1}{2}gt^{2}

So that's where the 1/2 comes from. It turns out that the coefficient of 1/2 rightly compensates for the fact that at the beginning you aren't moving as fast as you are at the end.
 
atypical said:
1. I know you get two completely different answers if you plug in a set value
Really? How is that? What "set value" are you plugging in that gives you "two completely different answers?"


atypical said:
1. ...why can't you measure height of a free-falling object by multiplying the number of seconds^2
The complete equation is

D = V_it + \frac{1}{2}at^2


In the case of horizontal movement of a projectile, there is no acceleration, so we have

D_x = V_{ix}t


In the case of vertical movement of a projectile, the acceleration is equal to g (which is approximately -32 ft/sec or -9.8 m/s). Note that the acceleration is negative, since it is a downward acceleration. The equation for vertical movement is then

D_y = V_{iy}t + \frac{1}{2}gt^2


Also, note that V_{ix}[/tex] and V_{iy}[/tex] refer to <i>initial</i> horizontal and vertical speeds, respectively.<br /> <br /> The equation you gave only works for an objects with an initial vertical velocity of zero (at rest), in which case V_{iy} = 0[/tex]<br /> <br /> So, you CAN measure (determine) the height of an object with this equation, as long as you know V_{iy}[/tex], t, and a.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="atypical" data-source="post: 2968896" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> atypical said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> 2. Is the coefficient 1/2 because you are compensating for the seconds^2?<br /> 3. Does the equation h=1/2gt^2 result because acceleration is the second derivative of position? </div> </div> </blockquote>This results from combining the 2 basic forms of the kinematic equations:<br /> <br /> D_f = D_i + \frac{V_i + V_f}{2} \, t<br /> <br /> and<br /> <br /> V_f = V_i + at<br /> <br /> <br /> These equations assume constant acceleration.<br /> <br /> The first one says that the final displacement D_f[/tex] is equal to the initial displacement D_i[/tex] plus the average velocity over the distance traveled times the time it took to cover that distance.<br /> <br /> The second one says that the final velocity V_f[/tex] is equal to the initial velocity V_i[/tex] plus the product of the acceleration and the time it accelerated.<br /> <br /> Do some algebra, and you'll see that you come up with the equation I listed in the first answer.<br /> <br /> (Note that the 1/2 term comes from the average velocity in the first equation, above.)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="atypical" data-source="post: 2968896" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> atypical said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> 4. Why? </div> </div> </blockquote>Why what? What is your question here?
 
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...
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 .
Back
Top