Jump to content

Gravity g's, missing term(?)


Capiert
 Share

Recommended Posts

STOP!
Under Construction
Please wait!

 

g=2*h/(t^2)-2*vi/t.

It looks (to me)
 like that term -2*vi/t

 has been missing
 for a long time.

Surely
 you ((should) already)
 know it;
 but do you use it
?

For
 
(fallen) height h
 time(_difference) t
 initial_speed vi.

The free_fall acceleration
 g~-(Pi^2) [m/(s^2)]+ac
 g=~-9.8 [m/(s^2)]
 is (instantaneous,) linear, & negative;

 & (please bear with me)
 (the bothersome details:)

 (=but it) (is) slightly) reduced
 by the (Earth's daily_rotational)
 centrifugal_acceleration
 ac=(vc^2)/r

 having the (squared)
 Earth's (surface) circumferential_speed
 vc=cir/T

 with (the Earth's) circumference
 cir=2*Pi*r

 using ((your) Earth's) per radius r (position)

 & (sidereal_)day (time_)period T~23 56 [min] 4 [sec]
 in seconds;

 (instead of 24 in seconds).
 

---

Disclaimer:

That's about all
 there is to it (=g, overview),
 when (also) observing
 your location
 & position.

(Air friction
 would have to be considered;
 but I'm NOT going to bother
 for in(side) a vacuum.)

E.g. Naturally
 (all) those (extra) details
 (for the centrifugal_acceleration ac, etc.)
 can be determined.

However,
 I'( a)m concerned (here)
 with (mostly
 
only) the initial_speed's vi term.

(E.g. A term that would (also) occur (for you)
 in the ((total) work_)energy
 WE=F*d
 if you ((were to) also) included the (integration) limits
 from zero to the initial_speed;
 instead of exclude it (=initial_speed,
 as a different reference (frame, choice)).

(Which can be determined, graphically
 with a plot:
 speed versus time.

The (plot's) area is the distance.)


It's easier (for me)
 to use positive
 instead of negative (plot) values.

---

Freefall:

If I let a pebble (stone or ball) fall
 (in a vacuum)
 (from rest, (with) initial_speed vi=0 [m/s], at time t0=0)

---

CAUTION:
From here on
 this website's software
 has WRONGLY Strikedthrough
 the rest of my text, automatically.

Please see the files
 until someone
 helps me undo the Strikedthough.

Please would someone help me fix this?

Marking & reclicking Strikethrugh
 does NOT undo Strikethrough
 like it would for Bold, italics or underline.

What is wrong with your Software?

---


 then in (time(_difference) t1=)1 second
 it will (have) fall(en) the height(_difference) h1=-4.9 [m]
 & have the final_speed vf1=-9.8 [m/s].

(I could also reverse that
 & say:
 If I let a stone (pebble) fall
(from a height h1=)4.9 [m] (wrt the ground),
 -4.9 [m]
 (to the ground),
 then it will hit the ground
 in (time t1=)1 second
 & impact (ruffly) at a (final_) speed vf=-9.8 [m/s].

We know freefall
 is "linear" acceleration,
 so in time(_difference) t2=2
 fallen_height h2=-9.8 [m]
 & final_speed vf2=-19.6 [m/s].

 etc.

E.g.
Instead,

 we could have used
 the 1st final_speed (vf1)
 (from the 1st (time_(difference)) second (t1))
 as the 2nd initial_speed vi2=-9.8 [m/s]
 (e.g. as if thrown)
 & allow the pebble to restart (accelerating)
 as if from zero in initial_speed vi1=0 [m/s],
 but for: (only) the 2nd (time_(difference) t(2-1)=1) second;
 its (=the pebble's) additional fallen_height h(2-1)=-4.9 [m];
 & additional final_speed vf(2-1)=-9.8 [m/s].

So, the (total) fallen_height h2=h1+h(2-1)=-4.9 [m]+(-4.9 [m])=-9.8 [m];

 & the (total) final_speed vf2=vf1+vf(2-1)=-9.8 [m/s]+(-9.8 [m/s])=-19.6 [m/s].

 

The fallen height (taken from a graph),
 h=vi*t+g*(t^2)/2
 is only 2 terms:
 the constant (initial_)speed term vi*t;
 & the accelerating term g*t*t/2.

The speed(_difference)
 v=g*t
 is the (freefall) acceleration g
 multiplied by time t.

But
 the accelerating term
 g*t*t/2=(v/2)*t
 is "half"
 of that speed(_difference) v(=vf-vi)
 multiplied by time t

 h=vi*t+(v/2)*t
 h=(vi+v/2)*t, & va=(vi+v/2) is the average_speed
 h=va*t.

The average_speed
 va=h/t
 is the fallen height h(=d distance)
 per time(_difference) t.

(The final_speed
 vf=vi+v
 vf=((vi^2)+g*h*2)^0.5
 )

 The (linear) average_acceleration
 ga=h/(t^2). <----That'( i)s Important! So simple, NO other terms!
 ga=va/t
 ga=

The freefall gravitational "average_(linear)_acceleration", (&) is
 ga=vi/t+g/2, swap sides
 vi/t+g/2=ga, -vi/t
 g/2=ga-vi/t, *2

 then the (instantaneous) linear freefall gravitational acceleration, is
  g=2*(ga-vi/t).

Note: Syntax
 (my) ga=g_a (yours).

Those are the conversions

 to & from linear
 instantaneous versus average:

 speeds; & accelerations.

Again:

The average_speed
 va=h/t
 va=vi+(v/2).

The (linear) average_acceleration
 ga=h/(t*t)=va/t
 ga=vi/t+g/2.

The (average_)time
 t=h/va
 is the height h
 per average_speed va; or
 t=(h/ga)^0.5
 the rooted:
 height h;
 per (linear) average_acceleration ga.

It'( i)s that simple.

(Algebra.)


 

 

2021_05_24_2011_ Linear_acceleration's_Average_speed__diagram__2021 05 24 2038 PS Wi.pdf 2021_05_24_1702_Gravity g's, missing term_2021 05 24 2130 PS Wi.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Capiert said:

g=2*h/(t^2)-2*vi/t.

It looks (to me)
 like that term -2*vi/t

 has been missing
 for a long time.

Missing from what? This not an equation for g. It comes from a different equation, rearranged, which you have not shared.(i.e. g is typically not an unknown in kinematics problems)

IOW, you are skipping some necessary steps in the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Missing from what?

From g.
You obviously disagree,
 otherwise you would NOT have asked.

Quote

This not an equation for g.

Why NOT?
It works.

Quote

It comes from a different equation, rearranged, which you have not shared.

(As far as I know) I have shared the equation:
 the fallen height (taken from a graph),
 h=vi*t+g*(t^2)/2.

Quote

(i.e. g is typically not an unknown in kinematics problems)

Typical is NOT all cases,
 but instead most (e.g. a majority).

For me it was an unknown
 that I wanted to find,
 e.g. experimentally.

 

Can someone please help me
 with unstrikethrough my text (above)?

Edited by Capiert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Capiert said:

From g.
You obviously disagree,
 otherwise you would NOT have asked.

Why NOT?
It works.

(As far as I know) I have shared the equation:
 the fallen height (taken from a graph),
 h=vi*t+g*(t^2)/2.

Typical is NOT all cases,
 but instead most (e.g. a majority).

For me it was an unknown
 that I wanted to find,
 e.g. experimentally.

 

Can someone please help me
 with unstrikethrough my text (above)?

I'm not quite sure what this is about but regarding the effect on g of the Earth's rotation, this once came up elsewhere and I worked out that even at the equator, the reduction in apparent g due to the Earth's rotation was only about 0.3%. It went as follows:


- The radius of the Earth is ~4000miles, so its circumference, say at the equator is 2 x π x 4000 which comes to ~25,000miles.

- The tangential speed at the equator is therefore 25000miles/day, which is close to 1000mph.

- The centripetal acceleration needed to keep an object moving with tangential velocity v, in a circle of radius r, is v²/r. So, for an object at the equator, the apparent centrifugal acceleration it experiences, counter to the acceleration of gravity, will be 1,000,000/4000 =  250 miles/hr².  

What we need to know is how this acceleration compares with g, the acceleration due to gravity, which is about 10m/sec². To do that, we need to get this result into the same units as g is quoted in:-

1 mile is ~1600m. And 1hr is 3600 seconds. So 250 miles/hr² becomes 250 x 1600/(3600)² = 25 x 16/(360 x 36) = 25 x 4/(360 x 9) = 100/3240 = ~ 0.03 m/sec². 

So the centrifugal force at the equator, as a proportion of the force of gravity, is of the order of 0.03/10 =0.003, or 0.3%.

At higher latitudes it will be less, presumably by a factor of the cosine of the latitude, falling to zero at the poles. 

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

(As far as I know) I have shared the equation:
 the fallen height (taken from a graph),
 h=vi*t+g*(t^2)/2.

1. No, you did not post this equation 

2. vi*t is clearly present in it.

So what is missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

1. No, you did not post this equation 

That surprises me
 because
 I can read the following (from above)

The fallen height (taken from a graph),
 h=vi*t+g*(t^2)/2
 is only 2 terms:
 the constant (initial_)speed term vi*t;
 & the accelerating term g*t*t/2.

 & also in my posted (above, 2nd of 2) .pdf's (above).

https://www.scienceforums.net/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=23252

Surely you will be able
 to determine
 when that (equation) was posted.
 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

2. vi*t is clearly present in it.

Good! (for that product).

But now for the quotient -2*vi/t
  in  g (alone).

1 hour ago, swansont said:

So what is missing?

Someone to assist me
 in getting
 the WRONGLY strikedthrough text (above)
 to be NOT strikedthrough, anymore.

Would you help?

But to answer your question:

Again, clearly -2*vi/t was NOT present in g (before my threads).
I have NOT seen that term in books;
 but algebraically
 it is correct
 (as to how I gave it to you).

Science should confirm itself,
 but it seems
 (to me)
 you (might) probably prefer NOT
 that the g equation be intact,
 when rearranged
 (e.g. if you leave out that term -2*vi/t)?

(Is that possible?)

I have only moved the acceleration g
 to the left side,
 & all other terms to the right side.

That should give
 the correct g (equation).

(Otherwise, the (general) equality
 is either destroyed,
 or distorted.)

It'(=What I have done i)s NOT complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Capiert said:

That surprises me
 because
 I can read the following (from above)

The fallen height (taken from a graph),
 h=vi*t+g*(t^2)/2
 is only 2 terms:
 the constant (initial_)speed term vi*t;
 & the accelerating term g*t*t/2.

Sorry, you didn’t post it before the other equation. I only read the first section, because of the nonsense value. Plus I would’ve skipped the strikethrough text anyway.

 

28 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Again, clearly -2*vi/t was NOT present in g (before my threads).
I have NOT seen that term in books;
 but algebraically
 it is correct
 (as to how I gave it to you).

Clearly this is bollocks. 

 h=vi*t+g*(t^2)/2 (or an equivalent equation) is standard fare in any physics textbook that presents kinematics equations.

equation 3 https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/one-dimensional-motion/kinematic-formulas/a/what-are-the-kinematic-formulas

top left of the “big 4” https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-6/Kinematic-Equations

3rd equation https://www.pasco.com/products/guides/kinematic-equations

and so on...

Your complaint is entirely fabricated.

(you can also notice that nobody is presenting this as an equation for acceleration)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Swansont:
Sorry, you didn’t post it before the other equation.

Sorry, that'( i)s NOT true!
It's in other threads before this 1
Is half a year too early for you?

Swansont: (Kinetic_Energy is already relative, 2020 11 23 16:26)

What valid physics principle is this based on?

 

Capiert:  (Kinetic_Energy is already relative, 2020 11 23 16:28)

Mechanics:
Gravity's (free_fall, linear_acceleration a=g)
 fallen_height
 h=hf-hi=vi*t+g*t*t/2
 for time t
 & initial_speed vi
 gives
 final_speed
 vf=((vi^2)+g*h*2)^0.5

11 hours ago, swansont said:

I only read the first section, because of the nonsense value.

Please explain:
What value
 do you mean;
 & why?

Maybe you missed something (important)?

If you mean
 g=2*h/(t^2)-2*vi/t
 then please read (my files, in this thread) further.

You do NOT sound
 completely connected.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Plus I would’ve skipped the strikethrough text anyway.

That is quite a natural reaction.

But you have NOT made a suggestion
 how I can fix
 your sfn strikethrough software bug.
No response to my question (request)
 as neither: yes; NOR NO. =NO!
Makes it (=my request) sound (=seem) rhetoric.

11 hours ago, swansont said:
  11 hours ago, Capiert said:

Again, clearly -2*vi/t was NOT present in g (before my threads).
I have NOT seen that term in books;
 but algebraically
 it is correct
 (as to how I gave it to you).

 

Swansont:

Clearly this is bollocks. 

 h=vi*t+g*(t^2)/2 (or an equivalent equation) is standard fare in any physics textbook that presents kinematics equations.

Yes, we (all) know that.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

equation 3 https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/one-dimensional-motion/kinematic-formulas/a/what-are-the-kinematic-formulas

top left of the “big 4” https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-6/Kinematic-Equations

3rd equation https://www.pasco.com/products/guides/kinematic-equations

and so on...

Your complaint is entirely fabricated.

(you can also notice that nobody is presenting this as an equation for acceleration)

So (I guess) I am (1 of) the 1st!
 to present
 the gravitational_acceleration (formula)
 g=2*h/(t^2)-2*vi/t
 as exactly so
 (=in its corrected form).
P.S. (But) I can NOT believe
 I am the ONLY 1
 who has ever done that,
 or tried.

You (only) confirm
  that I can NOT find (exactly) this ("g=2*h/(t^2)-2*vi/t") in books.

I have NOT seen that term
 (-2*vi/t, exactly in that position)
in books.

(This is a speculation thread
 thus I want to present (either) something new,
 or an improvement against a flaw
 or weakness.)

My complaint is (from),
Capiert: (Kinetic_Energy is already relative, 2020 11 23 16:28)
How do we know that acceleration a=x/(t^2)?

Better said: If I let (distance) x=h (height), instead;
 then:
How do we know that acceleration a is (suppose to be) h/(t^2)?

My answer:
We do NOT know that (at all)!
I do NOT get that formula, that you claim. (It is NOT possible (for me).!)
Especially when the height h=d distance NEEDS a factor "2".

g=2*h/(t^2)-2*vi/t".

Anyone who uses your basis
 will get
 g#h/(t^2)
 h#g*(t^2).

But

 a~2*x/(t^2) is the minimum requirement. E.g.
 x~a*(t^2)/2.

& where is the vi*t term
 in that?
NOWHERE!
So (thus) it is NOT the (EXACT) general (equality) formula

of "standard fare in any physics textbook.."
 NOR "an equivalent equation", thereof;
 BUT instead a distortable (mere) approximation.

(I can NOT rely on it for (my) other derivations.)

You may be happy with such carelessness;
 but I can NOT be.

It (=That formula: whether e.g. a#x/(t^2), or e.g. x~a*(t^2)/2)
 is either an equation (=equality);
 or (else) it is NOT.

& there it is definitely NOT (an equation).

11 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Swansont: (Kinetic_Energy is already relative, 2020 11 23 16:26)
If I drop a mass from some height, how fast will it be moving when it hits the floor?

My answer was,
Capiert: (Kinetic_Energy is already relative, 2020 11 23 16:28)
 the final_speed is
 vf=((vi^2)+g*h*2)^0.5 .

But you did NOT like that (answer),
 perhaps because
 its result
 is independent
 of mass m?

(It (=That answer) does NOT NEED mass.)

(But it is also new to me
 that algebra
 is NOT suppose to be math,
 if it is?
You closed the thread.


Perhaps you wanted some number( value)s
 to assist (confirming) your understanding
 of something
 you can easily do yourself;
 but doubted my ability. ?
E.g. Mistakes happen. Typos.)

I was only trying
 to answer your question
, (preparing)
 while you closed.

That (=your impatience) does NOT seem fair.
(Especially when you said there is NO time_limit.)
(Mordred also stated to (someone) NOT to answer
 if you do NOT know.
I also wanted to check some details
 before I answered you.
Thus my hesitation=delay.
There are still (some) things I need to clear.
However:)

For that equation
 vf=((vi^2)+g*h*2)^0.5
 we typically set the initial_speed vi=0 [m/s]
 if (=when) we only drop,
 g=9.8 [m/(s^2)],
 & e.g. let the height h=1 [m]

 vf=((0^2)+9.8 [m/(s^2)]*1 [m]*2)^0.5
  vf=4.4 [m/s].

 E.g. let the height h=2 [m]

  vf=((vi^2)+g*h*2)^0.5
  vf=((0^2)+9.8 [m/(s^2)]*2 [m]*2)^0.5
  vf=6.3 [m/s].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Capiert said:

So (I guess) I am (1 of) the 1st!
 to present
 the gravitational_acceleration (formula)
 g=2*h/(t^2)-2*vi/t
 as exactly so
 (=in its corrected form).
P.S. (But) I can NOT believe
 I am the ONLY 1
 who has ever done that,
 or tried.

Don’t injure yourself patting yourself on the back. Rearranging the equation is algebra, so any high-schooler should be able to manage that.

I am focused solely on your claim that vi is missing from the equation, when that’s clearly not true.  

11 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Capiert: (Kinetic_Energy is already relative, 2020 11 23 16:28)

If you’re going to reference an earlier thread, you should post an actual link, rather than give a time/date.

 

17 minutes ago, Capiert said:

How do we know that acceleration a is (suppose to be) h/(t^2)?

My answer:
We do NOT know that (at all)!
I do NOT get that formula, that you claim. (It is NOT possible (for me).!)

You should learn calculus. a = dv/dt

Integrate twice, applying boundary conditions, and you get that result (as would many thousands of people who can do the math) 

That you can’t do it in no way implies that the equation is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Don’t injure yourself patting yourself on the back.

I'll do my best! :) Thanks.
(I got a good chuckle (out of that).)

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Rearranging the equation is algebra, so any high-schooler should be able to manage that.

Yes! That is my intention.
You obviously have NOT read
 this thread's file.
It's NOT complicated!
It's easy.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

I am focused solely on your claim that vi is missing from the equation, when that’s clearly not true.

Please explain.
vi included: is the general equation.
But without vi: is a limited (specific example) formula,
 that can NOT work for all cases.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you’re going to reference an earlier thread, you should post an actual link, rather than give a time/date.

Locked threads DON'T allow quoting.
Maybe (other_options) sharing can help linking, a bit.?


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Capiert said:

You obviously have NOT read
 this thread's file.

You should know that requiring this is not in compliance with the rules.

4 hours ago, Capiert said:

Please explain.
vi included: is the general equation.
But without vi: is a limited (specific example) formula,
 that can NOT work for all cases.

Yes. That’s what you do - write down the general equation and eliminate the terms that are zero in a particular problem. In the other thread I expressly said dropping from rest, making vi = 0. There’s no reason to continue to include it for that problem. There’s no implication that it applies to all cases once you have imposed such restrictions 

4 hours ago, Capiert said:

Locked threads DON'T allow quoting.

Locked threads also aren’t supposed to be resurrected

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Posted (edited)

 

On 5/25/2021 at 6:42 PM, Capiert said:
Quote

I am focused solely on your claim that vi is missing from the equation, when that’s clearly not true.

Please explain.
vi included: is the general equation.
But without vi: is a limited (specific example) formula,
 that can NOT work for all cases.

 

On 5/25/2021 at 7:55 PM, swansont said:

Yes. That’s what you do - write down the general equation and eliminate the terms that are zero in a particular problem. In the other thread I expressly said dropping from rest, making vi = 0. There’s no reason to continue to include it for that problem. There’s no implication that it applies to all cases once you have imposed such restrictions 

What I mean is:
 (vi was missing from the "general" equation,
(NOT (just a) formula.)

 How do I know
 when I have
 the general equation
,
 (if or when I start
 with only (limited (specific example) formula) fragments)?

I'm searching for the general formula.

I (attempt(ed) to) maintain vi (initial_speed)
 to try
 to NOT get lost
 ((&) for other things (=projects, concepts, extrapolations)).

(You (may) think)
 you do NOT need it (=vi), (?) fine(!);
 but I do.

E.g.
 vi remains
 an invisible (hidden (excluded)) term
 for you(r)
 speed(_difference)
 v=vf-(vi).

It's always there.

Edited by Capiert
An example.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Capiert said:

 

 

What I mean is:
 (vi was missing from the "general" equation,
(NOT (just a) formula.)

I provided three links that shows this to be in error. Have you provided any examples of it being "hidden"?

 

Quote

 How do I know
 when I have
 the general equation
,
 (if or when I start
 with only (limited (specific example) formula) fragments)?

I'm searching for the general formula.

Usually it's derived with few constraints to it, and no initial conditions.

e.g. start with a = dv/dt, which is the definition of acceleration (always true)

Add in the condition that acceleration is constant, and integrate the equation and you get v = v0 +at

Apply the definition of velocity, v = dx/dt

Integrate again and you get s = v0t + 1/2 at2

The initial velocity is there (as it is in so many textbooks, if you'd only bother to look), and the only restriction is that you must have a constant acceleration

 

Quote

 vi remains
 an invisible (hidden (excluded)) term
 

Only if you forget to include it, but that's on you

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.