- Thread starter SpitFir3
- Start date

- Status
- Not open for further replies.

slacker123 said:

apply V = U + aT

in this case.. initial speed U=0

a is equal to g = 10 (like you said)

and T is 4 seconds

therefore V = (0) + (10)(4) = 40 m per second

in this case.. initial speed U=0

a is equal to g = 10 (like you said)

and T is 4 seconds

therefore V = (0) + (10)(4) = 40 m per second

V= Final velocity

U= Initial velocity (in this case 0, cos it was just dropped, not thrown downwards)

A= Acceleration (in this case 10m/s due to gravity)

T= Time taken

yepperz

moos blues said:

height of 40meters?

speed on ground is zero?

okay someone beat me to the answer.. haha got show working summore..

speed on ground is zero?

okay someone beat me to the answer.. haha got show working summore..

This means that the object strikes the ground at the velocity of 40 meters per second.. the distance is computated using a different formula

S = uT + 1/2(a)(T)^2 ( S equals ut plus half at squared)

U = 0, T = 4, a = 10,

therefore S = (0)(4) + (0.5)(10)(16) = 80

distance.. or heigh dropped from the ground would then be 80 meters

ipaquser said:

Taking downwards as positive

Ignoring air-resistance,

v = u + at

v = 0 + (10)(4)

v = 40m/s²

v² = u² + 2aS

40² = 0² + 2(10)(s)

1600 = 20s

s = 80 m

Final velocity at the moment before hitting the ground = 40 m s^-2

Height = 80m

Ignoring air-resistance,

v = u + at

v = 0 + (10)(4)

v = 40m/s²

v² = u² + 2aS

40² = 0² + 2(10)(s)

1600 = 20s

s = 80 m

Final velocity at the moment before hitting the ground = 40 m s^-2

Height = 80m

Good Ole....College days........Guess the laws of attraction between the Genders is not GMM/r^2 huh ??

For what it's worth.....anyway.

As a real world example, most GPS satellites would give our locations wrongly by a few miles if they were not corrected by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity where the interaction of gravity, energy, mass, space and time affects each other simultaneously.

Indeed, Classical Mechanics has been superseeded by Quantum Physics and Mechanics. For the newtonian model of F = GmM/r^2, it is invalid in the determinant of Mercury's orbit and revolution upon its axis due to the effects of time warp from the Sun. Thus we must be careful to note that what was taught to us during college days as well as first year undergraduate physics be taken with a pinch of salt at the higher levels.

Then again, no doubt, the newtonian model is much simpler to understand, apply, use and to calculate from. The Einsteinian methologies exemplify extremely complex and complicated mathematics of at least graduate level stretching to post-Doctoral level.

And at the end of the day. It is concluded that out of every student that took physics in secondary school and JC. 99.5% dislike the subject.

nickmak said:

If GMm/r^2 were to work with the laws of attraction, we'd still be bachlors here! :bsmilie:

Interesting thought, notable indeed.

Perhaps at the end of the day, the theoretical law of attraction between the genders for the male and female would be

male = {Pretty, Smart, Rich, Nice, Sweet, Cute, Submissive, etc}

and perhaps:

female = {Tall, Strong, Handsome, Rich, Smart}

ideals of relationship often being just plain vagaries of methological differentiating in a "free economy of a big ocean of fish".

Then again. perhaps only one fish out of a billion "suits the taste" of that one particular individual. Whenceforth money is earned by the wedding photographer ;p

slacker123 said:

As a real world example, most GPS satellites would give our locations wrongly by a few miles if they were not corrected by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity where the interaction of gravity, energy, mass, space and time affects each other simultaneously.

Indeed, Classical Mechanics has been superseeded by Quantum Physics and Mechanics. For the newtonian model of F = GmM/r^2, it is invalid in the determinant of Mercury's orbit and revolution upon its axis due to the effects of time warp from the Sun. Thus we must be careful to note that what was taught to us during college days as well as first year undergraduate physics be taken with a pinch of salt at the higher levels.

Then again, no doubt, the newtonian model is much simpler to understand, apply, use and to calculate from. The Einsteinian methologies exemplify extremely complex and complicated mathematics of at least graduate level stretching to post-Doctoral level.

And at the end of the day. It is concluded that out of every student that took physics in secondary school and JC. 99.5% dislike the subject.

Wow.....Great insight !! :thumbsup:

Anyhow, just got a feeling that the Theory of Relativity is in full swing here......is that 2 Einsteins that I'm seeing ??...from my point of view........Relatively ...Seriously....no flames intended.....only puns.

:embrass:

nickmak said:

Newtonian Physics fails at the speed of light!

Sighz... just when we thought we finished figuring out things...

And light, depending on the frequency, has mass! Using E=mc^2, rearrange and fit E=hf, and you get m=hf/c^2!

Ok I'm blabbering...

Sighz... just when we thought we finished figuring out things...

And light, depending on the frequency, has mass! Using E=mc^2, rearrange and fit E=hf, and you get m=hf/c^2!

Ok I'm blabbering...

nickmak said:

Sighz... just when we thought we finished figuring out things...

And light, depending on the frequency, has mass! Using E=mc^2, rearrange and fit E=hf, and you get m=hf/c^2!

Ok I'm blabbering...

E = hf + c

C is a constant that is sometimes introduced to account for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. At the same time, we must keep in mind that such an equation is very very simple. It is a fouding theorem for quantum mechanics that still works in some cases. At yet, most scientist, physicist, mathematicians and astronomers prefer to apply the Schrodeinger Equations to aid in accuracy in the calculation of minute sub atomic particles.

Therefore, your conjecture should be along the line of

E = (hf + c)/C^2

- Status
- Not open for further replies.