MHB How Long Until the Ball Hits the Ground?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YOLOSWAG1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
AI Thread Summary
To determine when the ball hits the ground, the problem involves using the kinematic equation x = x0 + v0t + at²/2, with given values of initial height (1m), initial velocity (+10 m/s), and acceleration due to gravity (−9.81 m/s²). The equation simplifies to 0 = 1 + 10t - 4.905t², which is a quadratic equation. The discussion highlights the need to apply the quadratic formula to solve for time, rather than isolating the variable t directly. Participants emphasize the importance of maintaining proper algebraic operations when manipulating the equation. The solution will yield the time it takes for the ball to reach the ground.
YOLOSWAG1
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Problem Statement: A boy throws a ball straight up into the air with an initial velocity of +10 m/s, from a height of 1m. Note that the acceleration due to gravity is −9.81m/s2. When does the ball hit the ground?

So I know that the Target Variable is Time, however I'm not sure which of the four kinematic equations I should use.

I thought I would use; x = x0 + v0t + at2/2, but I keep getting stuck.

Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Where exactly are you getting stuck? Your equation is correct, but can you show what you have tried so far?
 
Sure, after plugging in all the givens I got this; 0=1m+10m/s(time)+[(-9.81m/s^2)(time^2)/2]

Now when I try to isolate the target variable, time, I get incoherent stuff like this; 2(-1m/(10m/s)*(-9.81m/s^2))=t+t^2
 
If you divide by 10 on one side, you need to divide by 10 on the other side too, so that's incorrect. You don't need to isolate the variable t, though. You already have it in a form where the quadratic formula can be applied to it:
$$0=1+10t- \frac{9.81}{2}t^2 = 1+10t-4.905t^2.$$
(The units cancel out, so all the terms have dimensions of length.) Have you been introduced to the quadratic formula yet?
 
Last edited:
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top