What Are the Key Differences Between 2D and 1D Projectile Motion?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights that the fundamental principles of projectile motion remain consistent between 1D and 2D objects when ignoring factors like air resistance. Both types of motion can be analyzed using the center of mass, which simplifies calculations. However, when considering rotating objects, such as a 2D square, the effects of air resistance become significant, as rotation affects the trajectory due to pressure differentials in the air. This means that while the basic kinematic equations apply, real-world scenarios require accounting for rotational dynamics and external forces. Ultimately, the trajectory of a rotating object in a fluid medium differs from that predicted in a vacuum.
Dirac1238
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I was just wondering is there any major difference between the projectile motion of a 2D object vs the projectile motion of a 1D object or just a point. For example in a 2D world if someone just threw a square, would the calculation of the trajectory be a lot more complicated then calculating a simple regents physics problem involving someone throwing a baseball?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not at all, its exactly the same if you're ignoring things like air-resistance, etc.
 
In every object there is a point ( center of mass ) that is acting as the whole mass of that object is concentrated in it.
 
vlado_skopsko said:
In every object there is a point ( center of mass ) that is acting as the whole mass of that object is concentrated in it.
yes but what if the 2D square was rotating, would the equation of rotation be different then for let's say a 1D line.
 
Dirac1238 said:
yes but what if the 2D square was rotating, would the equation of rotation be different then for let's say a 1D line.

GOOD QUESTION! :smile:

As long as we disregard air resistance, then a thrown object will conserve angular momentum, because the only acting force upon the object, gravity, works at the C.M of the object.

Thus, whatever energy associated with the object's rotation initially will be the same during the whole object's flight.

We can, therefore, ignore the object's rotational state when calculating its trajectory.


However, and this is important:
Air resistance is IMMENSELY important in order to describe the actual orbit of, say, a rotating baseball.
This is because the rotation of the ball creates a velocity differential in the ambient air, and therefore, a pressure differential upon itself as well.

This means that in a viscous fluid like air, a rotating ball will get quite a different course than the one predicted for a ball in vaccuum, rotating or not.
 
If by equation of rotation you mean angular momentum or angular kinetic energy of the bodies, it is in the field of dynamic, where objects must have mass associated with them and geometry (3d). And from kinematic point of view all the objects are the same because we only look at the center of mass of those objects and arildno explained that very well.
 
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...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top