Why does drop time remain constant regardless of initial horizontal velocity?

AI Thread Summary
In projectile motion, the time it takes for an object to fall remains constant regardless of its initial horizontal velocity because the vertical and horizontal motions are independent of each other. The drop time is determined solely by the initial height, gravitational acceleration, and vertical displacement, which do not change with horizontal velocity. This independence is rooted in Newton's second law, where the forces acting in the vertical direction (gravity) dictate the vertical motion without influence from horizontal motion. As long as air resistance is negligible, the horizontal component does not affect the vertical drop time. Thus, the conclusion is that time remains constant due to the separation of vertical and horizontal motion dynamics.
charlatain
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
So in projectile motion, an object launched horizontally traveling over a certain displacement (Δx), fall time remains constant regardless of what this horizontal velocity was.

I understand that in this equation:

Δx = v(avg) × Δt

as horizontal velocity increases, displacement also increases, with time serving as the constant of variation. Mathematically, this makes sense. But in reasoning, I'm having a hard time grasping the concept. Just why does time remain constant?​
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You should think of the velocity of the object in two components, the vertical and horizontal. Because the time for the object to hit the ground from that height is not going to change since the height hasn't been changed...you only are concerned with the initial height, gravity, and the initial velocity. All in the vertical direction, that is.
 
Initial vertical velocity, acceleration due to gravity and vertical displacement are not changed by horizontal velocity (at a small scale). There is nothing else to change so why expect time to change. It does seem counter-intuitive but the math reveals the truth.
 
Just why does time remain constant?

Yes it does so if you ignore air resistance and any other aerodynamic forces.

Why? Well it should be pretty obvious that if you exclude any aerodynamic forces then the horizontal component of velocity can have no effect at all on the vertical forces (and visa versa). Does that make sense?
 
I suppose.

So what I understand (of course, air resistance being negligible):

The horizontal (x) motion of an object is entirely independent on its vertical (y) motion. Initial vertical velocity, acceleration due to gravity and vertical displacement are not affected by horizontal velocity, therefore time is not expected to change either. For example, simply dropping an object down vertically or launching it horizontally at any velocity will yield the same drop time simply because horizontal and vertical components CANNOT influence one another, given that the height, initial vertical velocity, acceleration due to gravity are kept constant.

Is that somewhere near?
 
The horizontal (x) motion of an object is entirely independent on its vertical (y) motion.

You are on the right track here. Allow me to be very clear, and systematic.

Essentially we are talking about Newton's 2nd law, F=ma. The key concept is that this equation is a vector equation. It decomposes into three different equations, relating the forces in the x-direction to the acceleration in the x-direction, and similarly for the y and z directions. Let's call these the x-force, y-force, and z-force equations.

Consider the y-force equation. The gravity force, as we know, always points downwards; hence the gravity force shows up in the y-force equation. But the gravity force is the only force pointing in the y-direction; so the the acceleration in the y-direction is only governed by the gravity force. Hence the "drop time" as you call it has no dependency on the velocity in the x-direction.

I believe this is the most systematic reasoning by which you would come to your conclusion. Please reply if you still don't understand.
 
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