Talk:Projectile motion

Projectile motion part of physics

Well, Projectile Motion is something I learned in Physics. I am trying to find out myself. So I am not sure.

Vinny P. Projectile motion is a two dimensional motion under constant acceleration due to gravity. 182.188.168.232 (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a LOT of work

Added the no-references template, but that's the least of the problems...

The Trajectory article has more details but it too is neither well-written nor well-organized, especially for someone who might consult an encyclopedia to try to learn a bit about this topic. For a standard high-school subject that one could expect students to look up here, these articles are, IMHO, really unacceptable...

For a far more detailed and accessible (I think...) treatment of this material, go to www.geogebra.org/en/upload and scroll down to and click on the /nikenuke directory. Once in there, click the /projectilePDF directory and a whole bunch of PDF papers will be available. These papers will provide a lot of analysis, some of which is beyond high-school level, but several of them should still be useful.

While in the /nikenuke directory, click on the projectile HTML files, with Java enabled, to run these simulations.

As time permits I will re-write this article, and see about the Trajectory one also.

[Sorry, I forgot to sign this the other day.] Rb88guy (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this is confusing. --Guerillero (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC) there was no diagram related to projectile motin (sehrish shafquie)30 oct 2010 Projectile motion come different in equations but each number . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.163.26.101 (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is R is the second equation? Stuff like that need to be addressed in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.63.234 (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs some one who understands Projectial Motion to come in and explain it better and define all the variabrls, and explain all the diffrent reacurrences of V_0 The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of projectile motion

The article does not say anything about history. The equations in the article use gravity(each equations comes into air resistance) which was a value known to Galileo and calculated by him. Vector analysis is also used but that branch of mathematics is attributed to Gibbs and Heaviside who lived much later. Who worked and formulated the projectile motion equations then????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

ICE77 (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air resistance should affect the horizontal displacement

We should ignore air resistance when calculating these things. But in real air resistance greatly affects the max. height and Range. But in the article under the section of 'The maximum distance of projectile', it is stated: Air resistance does not affect displacement of projectile. Is it true? I studied in many books that air resistance affects both height and horizontal distance.--G.Kiruthikan (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Projectile motion in art, where?

Can anyone work out what the Korean painting has got to do with projectile motion? The title (King Shooting Arrows) promises something to do with parabolic trajectories but I can't see any moving arrows. By coincidence the volcano just below the centre seems to be shooting out hot rocks with parabolic trajectories, but the text doesn't make any mention of that. --Heron (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: merged Trajectory of a projectile into Projectile motion. fgnievinski (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request received to merge articles: Projectile motion and Trajectory of a projectile; dated April 2016. Discussion here. Richard3120 (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support There is no reason at all for there to be two separate articles on this same topics. Reywas92^Talk 07:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge These articles are both very scientific and physics related. They may appear the same topic to the average Joe, but I request a subject expert to confirm this before a merger please. 62.64.152.154 (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes....they are the same topic....one just goes into a bit more depth about a certain component of it, but a single article could cover them both perfectly well. Reywas92^Talk 06:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as these articles cover the same exact topic. Also, have you considered proposing a merger for Range of a projectile. This seems to be covering another element of projectile motion. Hpesoj00 (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support a merge These articles are the same. Only a few details are specialized enough and could easily be incorporated into one article. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 07:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the articles address the same topic (projectile motion), from the same perspective (theoretical physics), with the only difference being content (and there are significant overlaps). felixphew (talk | contribs) 07:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why are there two different articles about the same topic? Pauliexcluded (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support but who is going to cut out all those painfully typeset math equations? Are we teaching high school physics here? Is it appropriate to give all those (unreferenced, unproofread) mathematical derivations here? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Curve of the Earth

How are the equations for projectile motion modified if the projectile travels a distance long enough that the curve of the Earth's surface cannot be ignored? Inkan1969 (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is not any apparent change in the calculation it's just that the formula is then linked with the formulas relating to gravitational fields and such.Fire blazr (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a parabolic path, it is an elliptical path. Anonymous5444 (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Physics

Show that there are two values of time for the same height during the course of flight of projectile and the sum of timings at which these heights are attained is equal to the total time of flight Monicakimaro (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a parabolic trajectory, yes. In a parabola, the two x-values at a specific y-value average out to the x-value of the vertex of the parabola, which, in our case, is the peak. The time of landing is 2 times the time of reaching the peak. Thus, it is the sum of the two time values at a y-value. Similarly, the sum of the two x-positions at a specified y-value add up to the landing distance because x-position is proportional to time (without air resistance). Anonymous5444 (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning

Was it really necessary to delete 80% of this article? It did contain quite useful explanations/formulas, the code snippet was probably too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.15.174 (talk • contribs)

Proposed merge of Range of a projectile into Projectile motion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Go for it. Unanimous consensus is that is better to have both concepts in the same place. ReyHahn (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

same concept fgnievinski (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(someone had removed the merger tag without justifying it here; probably they got confused for a different merger proposal above..)

same concept fgnievinski (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. The most important reason for studying projectile motion is to know if it will reach the enemy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it 2603:6080:8F02:AB35:A17A:DD81:2FE2:1792 (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Its nice to have all the same physics in one place. It will be helpful for physics students like me...Huzaifa abedeen (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. They're so utterly related, range is just one small component of the greater topic of projectile motion. It's like having separate pages for jumping and height of jumping. -- Neomayer (talk) 16:47, 19 Nov 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Things missing

I noticed a few very important things have been removed from the article. A few months ago, it was very rich. I remember it had pretty much everything. Equations to calculate time, maximum range, height, derivations, 2D trajectories, etc. It even had projectile motion in a non-uniform gravitational field and taking into account the curvature of the planet and it had a python code to numerically simulate a projectile in air resistance. Where is all that now? Looks like someone removed 80% of the article for no reason. Anyone know why this happened and if I can find all this again somewhere else? Dimitris45 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edits made by @LaundryPizza03 on 8 April 2021. I have restored this Wikipedia to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Projectile_motion&oldid=1014083173. If anybody having any problem please let us know here why? Huzaifa abedeen (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certainly because almost everything is unreferenced, and given WP:OR, that means that it shouldn't be there. However, that should be fixable if someone check the text and references from their favorite physics textbook. Klbrain (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a code repository. Even if referenced, that material shouldn't be there. And the rest looks like a violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and/or WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. XOR'easter (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: 4A Wikipedia assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 February 2023 and 12 June 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BlakeMalloy, JiachengGeng, ReignInSupremeDarkness (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Gab900, Zrivera5.

— Assignment last updated by Lzepeda12 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: 4A Wikipedia Assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 16 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Patthestar12 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: FranciscoCa27, Carson2200.

— Assignment last updated by Kmijares (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: 4A Wikipedia Assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 February 2024 and 14 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sanchez049909 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: JacobKwiar.

— Assignment last updated by Ahlluhn (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]