The discussion revolves around the initial velocity of an object that falls from a hot air balloon that is ascending at a constant velocity. Participants are exploring the implications of different reference frames on the perceived initial velocity of the object.
There is an ongoing exploration of different interpretations regarding the initial velocity based on reference frames. Some participants have provided insights into the implications of the problem's wording, while others are awaiting further clarification from the original poster.
Participants note that the problem's context implies a specific reference frame, typically that of the ground, and emphasize the importance of clearly defining the reference point when discussing velocity.
Wasay said:I think this question is based on refrence point.As with respect to hot air balloon the body is at rest with intitial velocity then being equal to zero,while if you consider Earth as refrence point then the object has some initial velocity which is equal to that of balloon given that refrence is earth.
Initial velocity relative to what? A key point to this question is that "velocity" can only be given relative to some zero point. The velocity of the object relative to the balloon and the velocity of the object relative to the ground are two different values.Kanyka said:So if you have an object in a hot air balloon that it traveling upwards at constant velocity, and this object falls out of the hot air balloon, is its initial velocity 0 or is it the same as that of the balloon?
Thanks in advance!
I strongly agree that this question is only answerable through the observer's point of view.jbriggs444 said:When the problem states that a hot air balloon is "travelling upwards at constant velocity", that already tells you that the default reference frame in use is not that of the hot air balloon. The natural assumption is that the default frame is one in which the ground is at rest.
We need to wait for the original poster to tell us what he thinks about the initial velocity of the dropped object relative to the ground.
Do not invent difficulties that you do not have to.Lisondra said:I strongly agree that this question is only answerable through the observer's point of view.
No. That is incorrect.Let's say that the situation you speak of only takes into account the moment the object falls. In this case, the object's initial velocity from the point at which it is dropped is zero.
Yah you are right sirjbriggs444 said:When the problem states that a hot air balloon is "travelling upwards at constant velocity", that already tells you that the default reference frame in use is not that of the hot air balloon. The natural assumption is that the default frame is one in which the ground is at rest.
We need to wait for the original poster to tell us what he thinks about the initial velocity of the dropped object relative to the ground.
My apologies. And looking back at my post, I now see the difficulties you speak of.jbriggs444 said:Do not invent difficulties that you do not have to.
Okay, I wrongly assumed that we were talking about specific frames of reference.jbriggs444 said:If you can find a frame where this is not true then that is not the frame of reference implied by the problem