Which Distance is Correct for a Free Falling Object?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the correct calculation of distance for a free-falling object under gravity. It clarifies that the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s², while the velocity of the object increases from 0 to 9.8 m/s over the first second. Formula 1, which uses constant velocity, incorrectly suggests a distance of 9.8 m, while Formula 2 correctly calculates the distance as 4.9 m using the average speed. The confusion arises from misunderstanding instantaneous velocity versus average velocity during the fall. Ultimately, the accurate distance fallen in the first second is 4.9 m.
arunkumarg
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I have a simple question may sound stupid for most of you:

For a free falling object v=9.8 m/sec. which of the distance traveled per sec is correct:

Formula 1:

d = vt
d = 9.8/1 = 9.8 m

Formula 2:
d = 1/2 a*t^2

acc of a free falling object is 9.8m/sec^2

d = 1/2 9.8*1^2
d = 4.9 m

This is a bit confusing.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


arunkumarg said:
For a free falling object v=9.8 m/sec.
No, the acceleration of a free falling object is 9.8 m/s^2. The velocity is not constant.

Formula 1:

d = vt
d = 9.8/1 = 9.8 m
This is incorrect as it assumes a constant velocity.

Formula 2:
d = 1/2 a*t^2

acc of a free falling object is 9.8m/sec^2

d = 1/2 9.8*1^2
d = 4.9 m
This is correct. That's the distance fallen in the first second.
 


Thanks for your reply.

When I say V = 9.8m/sec. its the instantaneous velocity (for the 1st Sec).

Hence, for the 1st sec the dist must be 9.8m.

I know I am missing the point somewhere.
 


arunkumarg said:
When I say V = 9.8m/sec. its the instantaneous velocity (for the 1st Sec).
That's the instantaneous velocity at the end of the 1st second. It starts out with zero velocity at t = 0 and ends up going 9.8 m/s at t = 1 sec.
Hence, for the 1st sec the dist must be 9.8m.
That would be true if the speed were constant for the entire second. But it's not. Since it starts from rest, the average speed during the 1st second is only 4.9 m/s.
 


Sounds good for me... Thanks pal
 
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...
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/
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...
Back
Top