Solving Rectilinear Motion Equations - Deriving at^2+v+h

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the equation x(t) = at² + v₀t + h₀ for rectilinear motion. Participants clarify that starting with dv/dt = a and integrating leads to the velocity function v(t) = at + v₀. The position function is then derived as x(t) = at² + v₀t + h₀, where h₀ represents the initial height. A point of confusion arises regarding the presence of the 1/2 factor in the equation, with some suggesting it may relate to objects thrown upward, where acceleration is negative. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the integration process and the correct formulation of motion equations.
BloodyFrozen
Messages
353
Reaction score
1
I can't remember how to derive this equation...

x(fluxion)
a=acceleration

x=a

From that, how do we get->

at^2+v+h

I think it had to do with integration, but I can't seem to get it to match the above.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi BloodyFrozen! :smile:

(try using the X2 icon just above the Reply box :wink:)

I don't understand what you mean by "fluxion" or "x=a" :confused:

Try starting with dv/dt = a (and dx/dt = v). :smile:
 
BloodyFrozen said:
at^2+vt+h

My bad.

Anyways, I think I got it...

dv/dt = a
v(t)=at+C1
v0=C1

v(t)=at+v0
x(t)=at2+v0t+C2
x0=C2

Therefore,

x(t)=at2+v0t+x0

Since x0 is the position at t=0, he can just replace it as the original height.


x(t)=at2+v0t+h0

Correct?:smile:
 
BloodyFrozen said:
x(t)=at2+v0t+h0

Correct?:smile:

erm :biggrin:

what happened to the 1/2 ? :rolleyes:
 
tiny-tim said:
erm :biggrin:

what happened to the 1/2 ? :rolleyes:

Woops my bad

1/2at2...:wink:

In one of the calculus review books, it says it's -1/2at2... Why is it that?
 
BloodyFrozen said:
In one of the calculus review books, it says it's -1/2at2... Why is it that?

i'll guess it's talking about something being thrown up

so if v0 is positive, then the acceleration is negative
 
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...

Similar threads

Back
Top