Rectilinear motion, in which speed increases proportionally to distance covered
$begingroup$
From Spivak Calculus
In 1604, at the height of his scientific career, Galileo argued that for a rectilinear motion in which speed increases proportionally to distance covered, the law of motion should be just that ($x = ct^2$) which he had discovered in the investigation of falling bodies. Between 1695 and 1700 not a single one of the monthly issues of Leipzig's Acta Eruditorum was published without articles of Leibniz, the Bernoulli brothers or the Marquis de l'Hopital treating, with notation only slightly different from that which we use today, the most varied problems of differential calculus, integral calculus and the calculus of variations. Thus in the space of almost precisely one century infinitesimal calculus or, as we new call it in English, The Calculus, the calculating tool par excellence, had been forged; and nearly three centuries of constant use have not completely dulled this incomparable instrument.
NICHOLAS BOURBAKI
Fair enough! However, I don't see how the equation follows. Galileo studied falling bodies, but falling bodies don't typically have speed increasing proportionally to distance, they have speed increasing proportionally to time. Where speed increases proportionally to time(const. acceleration), $x=ct^2$. But, at best, it's counter-intuitive that the equation is identical to, say, for speed increasing proportionally to distance.
let $v(0),x(0)$ be the speed and distance at a time $t=0$. then since speed increases proportionally to distance covered;
$v(t) - v(0) = k(x(t)-x(0))$.
Further manipulation results in
$v(t) - kx(t) = v(0) - kx(0)$
and $v(t) = x'(t)$, so it follows that
$x'(t) - kx(t) = v(0) - kx(0)$
These sorts of equations can be solved by isolating the derivative but they
typically have exponential solutions, not ones of the form $x(t)= ct^2$. Why does the latter work?
calculus ordinary-differential-equations physics
asked Dec 21 '18 at 11:42
ComparativeComparative
15912
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From Spivak Calculus
In 1604, at the height of his scientific career, Galileo argued that for a rectilinear motion in which speed increases proportionally to distance covered, the law of motion should be just that ($x = ct^2$) which he had discovered in the investigation of falling bodies. Between 1695 and 1700 not a single one of the monthly issues of Leipzig's Acta Eruditorum was published without articles of Leibniz, the Bernoulli brothers or the Marquis de l'Hopital treating, with notation only slightly different from that which we use today, the most varied problems of differential calculus, integral calculus and the calculus of variations. Thus in the space of almost precisely one century infinitesimal calculus or, as we new call it in English, The Calculus, the calculating tool par excellence, had been forged; and nearly three centuries of constant use have not completely dulled this incomparable instrument.
NICHOLAS BOURBAKI
Fair enough! However, I don't see how the equation follows. Galileo studied falling bodies, but falling bodies don't typically have speed increasing proportionally to distance, they have speed increasing proportionally to time. Where speed increases proportionally to time(const. acceleration), $x=ct^2$. But, at best, it's counter-intuitive that the equation is identical to, say, for speed increasing proportionally to distance.
let $v(0),x(0)$ be the speed and distance at a time $t=0$. then since speed increases proportionally to distance covered;
$v(t) - v(0) = k(x(t)-x(0))$.
Further manipulation results in
$v(t) - kx(t) = v(0) - kx(0)$
and $v(t) = x'(t)$, so it follows that
$x'(t) - kx(t) = v(0) - kx(0)$
These sorts of equations can be solved by isolating the derivative but they
typically have exponential solutions, not ones of the form $x(t)= ct^2$. Why does the latter work?
calculus ordinary-differential-equations physics
asked Dec 21 '18 at 11:42
ComparativeComparative
15912
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Either Spivak / Bourbaki (I couldn't quite tell who is responsible for the quoted passage) is pointing out that Galileo was incorrect and within a century Leibniz et al. had discovered the correct approach, or Galileo's statement has to be interpreted as "vertical speed increases proportionally to horizontal distance covered".
$endgroup$
– Rahul
Dec 21 '18 at 11:59
$begingroup$
Spivak's calculus book is quoting bourbaki (a quoted passage at the start of a chapter, most books do this).
$endgroup$
– Comparative
Dec 21 '18 at 12:04
$begingroup$
Anyhow, rectilinear motion is one-dimensional motion, so the latter interpretation can't hold.
$endgroup$
– Comparative
Dec 21 '18 at 12:05
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From Spivak Calculus
In 1604, at the height of his scientific career, Galileo argued that for a rectilinear motion in which speed increases proportionally to distance covered, the law of motion should be just that ($x = ct^2$) which he had discovered in the investigation of falling bodies. Between 1695 and 1700 not a single one of the monthly issues of Leipzig's Acta Eruditorum was published without articles of Leibniz, the Bernoulli brothers or the Marquis de l'Hopital treating, with notation only slightly different from that which we use today, the most varied problems of differential calculus, integral calculus and the calculus of variations. Thus in the space of almost precisely one century infinitesimal calculus or, as we new call it in English, The Calculus, the calculating tool par excellence, had been forged; and nearly three centuries of constant use have not completely dulled this incomparable instrument.
NICHOLAS BOURBAKI
Fair enough! However, I don't see how the equation follows. Galileo studied falling bodies, but falling bodies don't typically have speed increasing proportionally to distance, they have speed increasing proportionally to time. Where speed increases proportionally to time(const. acceleration), $x=ct^2$. But, at best, it's counter-intuitive that the equation is identical to, say, for speed increasing proportionally to distance.
let $v(0),x(0)$ be the speed and distance at a time $t=0$. then since speed increases proportionally to distance covered;
$v(t) - v(0) = k(x(t)-x(0))$.
Further manipulation results in
$v(t) - kx(t) = v(0) - kx(0)$
and $v(t) = x'(t)$, so it follows that
$x'(t) - kx(t) = v(0) - kx(0)$
These sorts of equations can be solved by isolating the derivative but they
typically have exponential solutions, not ones of the form $x(t)= ct^2$. Why does the latter work?
calculus ordinary-differential-equations physics
asked Dec 21 '18 at 11:42
ComparativeComparative
15912
$endgroup$
From Spivak Calculus
In 1604, at the height of his scientific career, Galileo argued that for a rectilinear motion in which speed increases proportionally to distance covered, the law of motion should be just that ($x = ct^2$) which he had discovered in the investigation of falling bodies. Between 1695 and 1700 not a single one of the monthly issues of Leipzig's Acta Eruditorum was published without articles of Leibniz, the Bernoulli brothers or the Marquis de l'Hopital treating, with notation only slightly different from that which we use today, the most varied problems of differential calculus, integral calculus and the calculus of variations. Thus in the space of almost precisely one century infinitesimal calculus or, as we new call it in English, The Calculus, the calculating tool par excellence, had been forged; and nearly three centuries of constant use have not completely dulled this incomparable instrument.
NICHOLAS BOURBAKI
Fair enough! However, I don't see how the equation follows. Galileo studied falling bodies, but falling bodies don't typically have speed increasing proportionally to distance, they have speed increasing proportionally to time. Where speed increases proportionally to time(const. acceleration), $x=ct^2$. But, at best, it's counter-intuitive that the equation is identical to, say, for speed increasing proportionally to distance.
let $v(0),x(0)$ be the speed and distance at a time $t=0$. then since speed increases proportionally to distance covered;
$v(t) - v(0) = k(x(t)-x(0))$.
Further manipulation results in
$v(t) - kx(t) = v(0) - kx(0)$
and $v(t) = x'(t)$, so it follows that
$x'(t) - kx(t) = v(0) - kx(0)$
These sorts of equations can be solved by isolating the derivative but they
typically have exponential solutions, not ones of the form $x(t)= ct^2$. Why does the latter work?
calculus ordinary-differential-equations physics
calculus ordinary-differential-equations physics
asked Dec 21 '18 at 11:42
ComparativeComparative
15912
asked Dec 21 '18 at 11:42
ComparativeComparative
15912
edited Dec 21 '18 at 11:55
Comparative
asked Dec 21 '18 at 11:42
ComparativeComparative
15912
asked Dec 21 '18 at 11:42
ComparativeComparative
15912
asked Dec 21 '18 at 11:42
ComparativeComparative
15912
15912
$begingroup$
Either Spivak / Bourbaki (I couldn't quite tell who is responsible for the quoted passage) is pointing out that Galileo was incorrect and within a century Leibniz et al. had discovered the correct approach, or Galileo's statement has to be interpreted as "vertical speed increases proportionally to horizontal distance covered".
$endgroup$
– Rahul
Dec 21 '18 at 11:59
$begingroup$
Spivak's calculus book is quoting bourbaki (a quoted passage at the start of a chapter, most books do this).
$endgroup$
– Comparative
Dec 21 '18 at 12:04
$begingroup$
Anyhow, rectilinear motion is one-dimensional motion, so the latter interpretation can't hold.
$endgroup$
– Comparative
Dec 21 '18 at 12:05
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Either Spivak / Bourbaki (I couldn't quite tell who is responsible for the quoted passage) is pointing out that Galileo was incorrect and within a century Leibniz et al. had discovered the correct approach, or Galileo's statement has to be interpreted as "vertical speed increases proportionally to horizontal distance covered".
$endgroup$
– Rahul
Dec 21 '18 at 11:59
$begingroup$
Spivak's calculus book is quoting bourbaki (a quoted passage at the start of a chapter, most books do this).
$endgroup$
– Comparative
Dec 21 '18 at 12:04
$begingroup$
Anyhow, rectilinear motion is one-dimensional motion, so the latter interpretation can't hold.
$endgroup$
– Comparative
Dec 21 '18 at 12:05
$begingroup$
Either Spivak / Bourbaki (I couldn't quite tell who is responsible for the quoted passage) is pointing out that Galileo was incorrect and within a century Leibniz et al. had discovered the correct approach, or Galileo's statement has to be interpreted as "vertical speed increases proportionally to horizontal distance covered".
$endgroup$
– Rahul
Dec 21 '18 at 11:59
$begingroup$
Either Spivak / Bourbaki (I couldn't quite tell who is responsible for the quoted passage) is pointing out that Galileo was incorrect and within a century Leibniz et al. had discovered the correct approach, or Galileo's statement has to be interpreted as "vertical speed increases proportionally to horizontal distance covered".
$endgroup$
– Rahul
Dec 21 '18 at 11:59
$begingroup$
Spivak's calculus book is quoting bourbaki (a quoted passage at the start of a chapter, most books do this).
$endgroup$
– Comparative
Dec 21 '18 at 12:04
$begingroup$
Spivak's calculus book is quoting bourbaki (a quoted passage at the start of a chapter, most books do this).
$endgroup$
– Comparative
Dec 21 '18 at 12:04
$begingroup$
Anyhow, rectilinear motion is one-dimensional motion, so the latter interpretation can't hold.
$endgroup$
– Comparative
Dec 21 '18 at 12:05
$begingroup$
Anyhow, rectilinear motion is one-dimensional motion, so the latter interpretation can't hold.
$endgroup$
– Comparative
Dec 21 '18 at 12:05
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Almost all that is "commonly known" about Galilei is overstated or covers some sleight-of-hand. This was started by Galilei himself who in a time of mercenary wars and the plague conducted science in a mercenary way, out of necessity and having not the necessary high aristocratic background to get a permanent professorship, thus had to keep the interest of his aristocratic (and ecclesiastic) patrons. Among others, he studied ballistic motions to improve cannons and how to use them predictably.
He could not have discovered anything in studying falling bodies as that is too fast and measurement of very short times was nearly impossible at the time. He invented the use of a bucket of water with a hole and spigot, and later pendulums as stop-watch. Now imagine doing free-fall experiments with these instruments.
Even the experiments of rolling a ball down a slope with a groove to guide it were "improved" in their measured results, as manufacturing tolerances for the ball and the straight edges of the groove were not high enough to get even basic accuracy.
So what Galilei published were more-or-less "thought experiments" where several possible models were discussed and admitted or excluded by how much some theoretical conclusions were conform with the practical experience he was able to perform. The remaining models were then elevated by "adjusted" experimental results.
"Speed increases proportional to distance" means $dot x=cx$ (everything starting at zero) which has $x=x_0e^{ct}$ as solution. If I remember right he discussed that as one of the models to exclude because of unreasonable theoretical consequences. For $x(t)=ct^2$ you get that $dot x=2ct=2sqrt{cx}$. In words that would mean that "speed increases proportional to time". Or the "proportional" in the original statement does not mean linear and is to be interpreted as "monotonous", among which class of models one also gets the one with $x=ct^2$.
answered Dec 21 '18 at 13:02
LutzLLutzL
60.5k42057
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3048429%2frectilinear-motion-in-which-speed-increases-proportionally-to-distance-covered%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Almost all that is "commonly known" about Galilei is overstated or covers some sleight-of-hand. This was started by Galilei himself who in a time of mercenary wars and the plague conducted science in a mercenary way, out of necessity and having not the necessary high aristocratic background to get a permanent professorship, thus had to keep the interest of his aristocratic (and ecclesiastic) patrons. Among others, he studied ballistic motions to improve cannons and how to use them predictably.
He could not have discovered anything in studying falling bodies as that is too fast and measurement of very short times was nearly impossible at the time. He invented the use of a bucket of water with a hole and spigot, and later pendulums as stop-watch. Now imagine doing free-fall experiments with these instruments.
Even the experiments of rolling a ball down a slope with a groove to guide it were "improved" in their measured results, as manufacturing tolerances for the ball and the straight edges of the groove were not high enough to get even basic accuracy.
So what Galilei published were more-or-less "thought experiments" where several possible models were discussed and admitted or excluded by how much some theoretical conclusions were conform with the practical experience he was able to perform. The remaining models were then elevated by "adjusted" experimental results.
"Speed increases proportional to distance" means $dot x=cx$ (everything starting at zero) which has $x=x_0e^{ct}$ as solution. If I remember right he discussed that as one of the models to exclude because of unreasonable theoretical consequences. For $x(t)=ct^2$ you get that $dot x=2ct=2sqrt{cx}$. In words that would mean that "speed increases proportional to time". Or the "proportional" in the original statement does not mean linear and is to be interpreted as "monotonous", among which class of models one also gets the one with $x=ct^2$.
answered Dec 21 '18 at 13:02
LutzLLutzL
60.5k42057
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Almost all that is "commonly known" about Galilei is overstated or covers some sleight-of-hand. This was started by Galilei himself who in a time of mercenary wars and the plague conducted science in a mercenary way, out of necessity and having not the necessary high aristocratic background to get a permanent professorship, thus had to keep the interest of his aristocratic (and ecclesiastic) patrons. Among others, he studied ballistic motions to improve cannons and how to use them predictably.
He could not have discovered anything in studying falling bodies as that is too fast and measurement of very short times was nearly impossible at the time. He invented the use of a bucket of water with a hole and spigot, and later pendulums as stop-watch. Now imagine doing free-fall experiments with these instruments.
Even the experiments of rolling a ball down a slope with a groove to guide it were "improved" in their measured results, as manufacturing tolerances for the ball and the straight edges of the groove were not high enough to get even basic accuracy.
So what Galilei published were more-or-less "thought experiments" where several possible models were discussed and admitted or excluded by how much some theoretical conclusions were conform with the practical experience he was able to perform. The remaining models were then elevated by "adjusted" experimental results.
"Speed increases proportional to distance" means $dot x=cx$ (everything starting at zero) which has $x=x_0e^{ct}$ as solution. If I remember right he discussed that as one of the models to exclude because of unreasonable theoretical consequences. For $x(t)=ct^2$ you get that $dot x=2ct=2sqrt{cx}$. In words that would mean that "speed increases proportional to time". Or the "proportional" in the original statement does not mean linear and is to be interpreted as "monotonous", among which class of models one also gets the one with $x=ct^2$.
answered Dec 21 '18 at 13:02
LutzLLutzL
60.5k42057
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Almost all that is "commonly known" about Galilei is overstated or covers some sleight-of-hand. This was started by Galilei himself who in a time of mercenary wars and the plague conducted science in a mercenary way, out of necessity and having not the necessary high aristocratic background to get a permanent professorship, thus had to keep the interest of his aristocratic (and ecclesiastic) patrons. Among others, he studied ballistic motions to improve cannons and how to use them predictably.
He could not have discovered anything in studying falling bodies as that is too fast and measurement of very short times was nearly impossible at the time. He invented the use of a bucket of water with a hole and spigot, and later pendulums as stop-watch. Now imagine doing free-fall experiments with these instruments.
Even the experiments of rolling a ball down a slope with a groove to guide it were "improved" in their measured results, as manufacturing tolerances for the ball and the straight edges of the groove were not high enough to get even basic accuracy.
So what Galilei published were more-or-less "thought experiments" where several possible models were discussed and admitted or excluded by how much some theoretical conclusions were conform with the practical experience he was able to perform. The remaining models were then elevated by "adjusted" experimental results.
"Speed increases proportional to distance" means $dot x=cx$ (everything starting at zero) which has $x=x_0e^{ct}$ as solution. If I remember right he discussed that as one of the models to exclude because of unreasonable theoretical consequences. For $x(t)=ct^2$ you get that $dot x=2ct=2sqrt{cx}$. In words that would mean that "speed increases proportional to time". Or the "proportional" in the original statement does not mean linear and is to be interpreted as "monotonous", among which class of models one also gets the one with $x=ct^2$.
answered Dec 21 '18 at 13:02
LutzLLutzL
60.5k42057
$endgroup$
Almost all that is "commonly known" about Galilei is overstated or covers some sleight-of-hand. This was started by Galilei himself who in a time of mercenary wars and the plague conducted science in a mercenary way, out of necessity and having not the necessary high aristocratic background to get a permanent professorship, thus had to keep the interest of his aristocratic (and ecclesiastic) patrons. Among others, he studied ballistic motions to improve cannons and how to use them predictably.
He could not have discovered anything in studying falling bodies as that is too fast and measurement of very short times was nearly impossible at the time. He invented the use of a bucket of water with a hole and spigot, and later pendulums as stop-watch. Now imagine doing free-fall experiments with these instruments.
Even the experiments of rolling a ball down a slope with a groove to guide it were "improved" in their measured results, as manufacturing tolerances for the ball and the straight edges of the groove were not high enough to get even basic accuracy.
So what Galilei published were more-or-less "thought experiments" where several possible models were discussed and admitted or excluded by how much some theoretical conclusions were conform with the practical experience he was able to perform. The remaining models were then elevated by "adjusted" experimental results.
"Speed increases proportional to distance" means $dot x=cx$ (everything starting at zero) which has $x=x_0e^{ct}$ as solution. If I remember right he discussed that as one of the models to exclude because of unreasonable theoretical consequences. For $x(t)=ct^2$ you get that $dot x=2ct=2sqrt{cx}$. In words that would mean that "speed increases proportional to time". Or the "proportional" in the original statement does not mean linear and is to be interpreted as "monotonous", among which class of models one also gets the one with $x=ct^2$.
answered Dec 21 '18 at 13:02
LutzLLutzL
60.5k42057
edited Dec 21 '18 at 14:49
answered Dec 21 '18 at 13:02
LutzLLutzL
60.5k42057
answered Dec 21 '18 at 13:02
LutzLLutzL
60.5k42057
answered Dec 21 '18 at 13:02
LutzLLutzL
60.5k42057
60.5k42057
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3048429%2frectilinear-motion-in-which-speed-increases-proportionally-to-distance-covered%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Either Spivak / Bourbaki (I couldn't quite tell who is responsible for the quoted passage) is pointing out that Galileo was incorrect and within a century Leibniz et al. had discovered the correct approach, or Galileo's statement has to be interpreted as "vertical speed increases proportionally to horizontal distance covered".
$endgroup$
– Rahul
Dec 21 '18 at 11:59
$begingroup$
Spivak's calculus book is quoting bourbaki (a quoted passage at the start of a chapter, most books do this).
$endgroup$
– Comparative
Dec 21 '18 at 12:04
$begingroup$
Anyhow, rectilinear motion is one-dimensional motion, so the latter interpretation can't hold.
$endgroup$
– Comparative
Dec 21 '18 at 12:05