Why Is the Theoretical Triangle Essential in Physics Diagrams?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AbedeuS
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Slope
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of the "theoretical triangle" versus the "practical triangle" in physics diagrams, particularly in the context of vector components in inclined plane problems. Participants explore the implications of using different triangle configurations for understanding acceleration and gravitational components.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the necessity of the theoretical triangle, suggesting that the practical triangle could suffice for calculations involving acceleration and gravity.
  • Another participant asserts that the mathematical approach using the theoretical triangle correctly relates acceleration, gravity, and the angle of inclination.
  • A different participant proposes that substituting variables in the practical triangle could yield similar results, raising concerns about the differences in outcomes between the two triangles.
  • It is noted that the theoretical triangle is designed to clarify the relationships between acceleration, gravitational force, and the angle, which may not be as evident in the practical triangle.
  • Participants discuss the specific definitions of sides in both triangles, indicating that the differences in layout affect the mathematical relationships derived from them.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and validity of using the theoretical triangle versus the practical triangle. There is no consensus on which approach is superior or if both can be valid under certain conditions.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight that the differences in triangle configurations lead to different mathematical outcomes, suggesting that assumptions about the relationships between the sides and angles are critical to the discussion.

AbedeuS
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
Hey guy's just found this forum, seems pretty interesting, but I've been nested in my bedroom trying to figure out one little thing that miffed me off, I did it in A level physics a while back and remember understanding it completely.

Just to make the question a little easier I'd like to refer you to the following URL as a referance:

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/APPhyNet/lab/experiments/kinematics/inclined_plane.htm

If you look at the vector component map you have the standard right angled triangle that was practically created by Galileo, there is an extra triangle (done in red in the diragram) that is made from a perpendicular line protudeing from the incline and intersecting the vertical line (g).

Why do they make this "Theoretical" triangle in almost all of the diagrams? Couldnt i theoretically just use the practical triangle? have G as the vertical (Rather than H) A still being the inclines vector and have a horizontal intersection line rather then a perpendicular line to A.

I tried doing the math for that rather than the theoretical triangle, comes out (if my math is right) as something like:

Sin*Theta*= G / A​

And therefore

Sin*Theta*A = G​

Which is wrong evidently because all books use A = GSin*Theta*

Whats wrong with my method (horizontal intersection) over the accepted method (Perpendicular theoretical intersection line) that makes it so bent for math? I know it seems like an annoying little question but it's been nagging me all night

Thanks
Adam K
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think your maths is wrong, [itex]a\sin\theta[/itex] gives the horizontal acceleration, not g. I'm not quite sure why you're using that triangle. The red triangle gives the relationship between a, g and theta, which is what you want.
 
Yeah but theoretically couldn't i just use the ogirional triangle for the acceleration components? Just substitute h for g and use the same layout.

The maths was an example of the outcome of using the standard practical layout, why is this "imaginary" triangle used is my question, better yet why does it HAVE to be used in order to get the correct number? Something to do with the perpendicular of the incline == the resulting acceleration vectors?
 
The red triangle is equivalent to the original triangle, the angle theta is given by arcsin(h/L)=arcsin(a/g). So in a way you are using the original triangle. You draw the red triangle like that to make the relationship between a,g and theta more obvious.
 
Yeah but the difference is pretty annoying

Theoretical triangle:
Opposite (Opposite of theta) = A
Hypotamuse (Next to theta but opposite the right angle) = G

Practical triangle
Opposite = G
Hypotamuse = A

If that helps see the differance

EDIT: So the maths is differant, its not purely asthetics
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 68 ·
3
Replies
68
Views
14K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
11K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
13K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K