Understanding Gravity and Arrow Velocity: A Simple Explanation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Iainhol
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Velocity
AI Thread Summary
Gravity affects an arrow's vertical motion by slowing it down as it rises and speeding it up as it falls, while the horizontal component of its velocity remains constant in the absence of air resistance. The discussion highlights that the forces acting on the arrow in the x (horizontal) and y (vertical) directions operate independently. Air friction is the primary force that reduces the arrow's overall velocity. Newton's second law supports the idea that without air resistance, the arrow's forward momentum would remain unchanged. Understanding these principles clarifies the dynamics of projectile motion.
Iainhol
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am currently at my in-laws in VT where a hunting debate came up. They say that gravity is slowing down the arrow. I stated that the x and the y act independently, therefore the forward momentum is the same. The only force slowing the arrow down is friction from air, therefore if there was no air the velocity would be the same (Newton's second law). Am I correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As the arrow rises, gravity acts to slow it down; as it falls, gravity acts to speed it up. Just like any other projectile. But you are correct that, ignoring air resistance, the horizontal component of the velocity would remain unchanged.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces not real just about terminology?'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Newton’s second law as one complete law
Replies
27
Views
2K
Who Exerts Gravity Power? Force x Velocity Dot Product
Replies
19
Views
2K
B Why Is an Object's Weight Equal to the Force of Gravity It Experiences?
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
What is the maximum velocity of a bullet at the instant it leaves the barrel?
Replies
5
Views
4K
I Drag equation - relative flow velocity
Replies
11
Views
3K
What forces oppose a car's motion when braking?
Replies
8
Views
4K
B Understanding Physics for Coding Collision of 2 Balls
Replies
14
Views
3K
Path of a projectile with a non-constant gravity
Replies
5
Views
2K
Why does atmosphere rotate w/ constant angular velocity?
Replies
34
Views
6K
Understand Momentum, Force and Impulse
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top