Talk:Linear motion

Untitled

Are the jokes about toddle's head etc. really necessary? 62.137.134.96 (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was vandalism, and has been reverted. Pagra shtak 15:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Reference Point

It would be wise to start out in discussion motion by first explaining the existence of a location point of reference or (Point of origin) concept before the property of motion is begun to be explained. So first we have a particle at rest at a location. And then we have motion. And the dimensions of the motion are related to the point of origin. Then, after Linear motion, which is 1 dimensional, you can advance to 3 dimensional motion without confusion.WFPM (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linear motion graphics

Whereas it con be argued that most Wiki articles start out too complicated, in this case it can be argued that this article starts out too simple! It accordingly would be in order to start out by explaining the rationale of an orthographic graphing system for graphing a distance versus time measuring system and to define the direction of the co-ordinates as being "x" or "s" as the abscissa, for the distance and as "t" the time co-ordinate, before getting into the mathematical equations of the process. Otherwise, the reader is going to start out thinking the explanation is ambiguous at the beginning, and it certainly is not going to get simpler as it goes along.WFPM (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

acceleration

In the section about acceleration the statement should be that the acceleration is the instantaneous change in velocity. And it is interesting that nobody is interested in the rate of change in the acceleration value evidently because we haven't found a physical process requirement for it.WFPM (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not familiar with Jerk (physics)? Dicklyon (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guess not. Do I need to know it for some purpose?WFPM (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. Thank you for the reference.WFPM (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to fit the physical properties of the "jerk" into the generalized equation for translation:

      S = S(zero) + (V1 x t)  + (a x t^2)/2 + ?. Of course that's for constant acceleration.WFPM (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Analogy between linear and rotational motion

I added some elements to the table to make it include exactly what is usually mentioned in first year college-based physics textbooks. This page ("Linear motion") is a strange place for this table, but it must get visited often because the google keywords "wiki linear rotational motion" get me to this page.

In contrast, the more appropriate title, Linear-rotational_analogs, seems to have too much material to be pedagogically useful.--guyvan52 (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Displacement

It seems this could be cleaned up, just some improvements in the wording. I'm not technically qualified to pass on this.

"There are two types ...." and the types are named, "rectilinear" and "curvilinear". Then the next sentence starts talking about "linear", and this noted earlier as "also called", but the difference would be confusing.

As far as "curvilinear" is concerned, that's the only place in the article that word appears. In the second Displacement paragraph, it seems to be equated with "rotational". Again, let's match the terms.

The language following this, "The displacement of an object cannot be..." as far as I know (non-physicist here) applies to both types, so should be a separate paragraph. Lontjr (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linear motion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110808181845/http://library.thinkquest.org/10796/ch3/ch3.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/10796/ch3/ch3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speed

It is a sclar quantity Speed never be zero 171.51.146.67 (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement units

The measurement units listed for acceleration, jerk, and jounce are incorrect. They are written as if they are some power of a reciprocal millisecond instead of meter times a power of a reciprocal second. The rules of usage for SI require that the product of two units be expressed explicitly by a space or centered dot between consecutive unit factors. For acceleration the unit is m s⁻² or m⋅s⁻² or m/s², not ms⁻². For jerk the unit is m s⁻³ or m⋅s⁻³ or m/s³, not ms⁻³. For jounce the unit is m s⁻⁴ or m⋅s⁻⁴ or m/s⁴, not ms⁻⁴. As a unit, m juxtaposed with s [no intervening space nor centered dot] is required to be interpreted as millisecond. The measurement unit for velocity and speed is done correctly. 2603:9001:700:2E96:244C:F368:7E36:8E30 (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing those errors to our attention. In 3 places I have separated the m and the s using a period. Perhaps someone else can change my periods into centered dots. Dolphin (t) 05:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Average velocity

The following comment was inserted into the article on 24 December from IP address 128.118.7.108.

”I think Wiki is wrong on this definition of average speed. Since speed is a scalar, the average speed is the integral of speed over time divided by total time interval. E.g., If a car drives around in a circle at 10 kph and returns to the starting point, its average velocity is zero. But its average speed is 10 kph.”

I will erase it from the article. Dolphin (t) 01:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waves

There are two types of waves longitudinal and transverse Longitudinal waves appear in springs and strings Transverse waves appear in water ,air etc Waves have got pulse and amplitude •Pulse is the effect of a single vibration travelling through a medium •An amplitude is a maximum displacement Super position >It occurs when two pulses meet to occupy the same space at the same time PULSES ON THE SAME SIDE:Constructive interference PULSES ON OPOSITE SIDE:Destructive interference. 41.116.144.52 (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2023 (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): Kbalagna, Zrivera5, Bdowell3 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SudoNeo, Jalenlthomas.

— 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): Saul Shad (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Suidrew, Djoung, Noahchavez.

— Assignment last updated by Djoung (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formulation

V→_f=V→_i+a→t

d→=V→_it+½a→t²

V→²_f=V→²_i+2a→*d→

d→=½(V→_f+V→_i)t

In equations, vectors were often represented as bolded letters to distinguish them from scalars. With the appropriate notation disclosed in recent years, arrows are now placed on top of letters to represent vectors. Vectors are mathematical objects that are comprised of a magnitude and direction. The arrow on top of a letter indicates the direction in which the vector is pointing. Additionally, the length of the arrow corresponds to its magnitude.

Reference Source: 1.1: Vectors.” Physics LibreTexts, 30 June 2022, phys.libretexts.org/Courses/University_of_California_Davis/UCD%3A_Classical_Mechanics/1%3A_Motion/1.1% Saul Shad (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

@Constant314 just tagged this as a proposed merge target from Displacement measurement with a link to the talk page here, but did not create a section in which to discuss it, so I have. I'm not sure why this has been proposed, but I do not think the two pages should be merged. There's an enormous amount of literature on the various types of displacement sensors, of which there are many, and if you look at some of what's been written about them (i.e. stress testing, biomedical applications, new/advanced types, ultrasonic,optical,contact or non-contact,potentiometers) there's clearly enough for an article, and a thorough treatment would not fit in this article. Merging Displacement measurement into this article just because it's a stub now would just prevent it from being developed further without having to be split out again, which it would have to be if more was put on Wikipedia about it. Besides the fact that this article cannot fit all the content that would fit in that one, the mathematical concept of motion in a line (as distinguished from Displacement (geometry), another mathematical concept that has its own article) is very distinct from a class of instruments measuring the distance and motion of a surface or object, which can be and are used to measure vibration, deformation, and to track tiny things in electromechanical circuits (if I'm remembering right). This merge would be detrimental and does not really make sense.

The nomination rationale can probably go below, waited to see if a section was going to be opened for discussion, but it was not. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; these are distinct topics, and displacement certainly isn't confined to the assessment of one-dimensional movement. A merge doesn't seem to be a good idea to me! Klbrain (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it was a no-brainer, but I see that others disagree. Constant314 (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]