ROUGH DRAFT

A Seeker's Truth

Sudhir Gajanan Murthy

 Table Of Contents

0 Theoretical Introduction to Truth

1 Theoretical Introduction to Formal Observation

2 Theoretical Introduction to Classical Kinematics

3 Theoretical Introduction to Classical Forces

4 Theoretical Introduction to Classical Energy

5 Theoretical Introduction to Classical Momentum

6 Theoretical Introduction to Classical Rotations

7 Theoretical Introduction to Fluid-Dynamics

8 Theoretical Introduction to Thermo-Dynamics

9 Theoretical Introduction to Classical Waves

10Theoretical Introduction to Classical Electrostatics

11 Theoretical Introduction to Classical Circuits

12 Theoretical Introduction to Magnetostatics

13 Theoretical Introduction to Special Relativity

14 Theoretical Introduction to Electro-Magnetism

15 Theoretical Introduction to General Relativity

16 Theoretical Introduction to Nuclear Physics

17 Theoretical Introduction to Quantum Mechanics

18 Theoretical Introduction to Cosmology

19 Theoretical Introduction to Matters and Compositions

20 Theoretical Introduction to Ambiguities with Truth Casualties in Occurence

2
 0

Theoretical Introduction to Truth

“The Seeker: “Father, now read me that book, for I can understand its language”

God: “Yes my Son, now that the language has been understood, its craft can begin”

God: “This book is called The Universe: Once upon a time, there was………………”

3
 Curiosity. Allows high moments and moment's high by letting weed even get a try. Allows us to question, to
imagine which without I would not passion. Allows stories to be told in many ways, even if Truth itself has only one
say. Curiosity. The drive that drives us all. The wings whose never fall. The meaning that stands infinitely tall.
Curiosity.

When Man first came upon the world, or when World first came upon the man, this curiosity was all that would
demand. And were the first seekers of Truth created, to solve Truth's puzzle by which we were painted. By so began
the inevitable quest, whose mandate to seek the Truth was God's test. Piece by piece Truth's empty puzzle lay flat,
unknown is next had us never relaxed. But to the first humans gravity not be known, and even the common still be
sewn. And until unwoven stays, the fabric of knowledge awaiting later days.

Soon the corner pieces of Truth be fit, which led to the realization that you can build from it. So the puzzle began to
deepen, as man's thirst for Truth began to steepen. Finally, the puzzle began to make sense, but the unused pieces
began to gather dense. As with every answer you get two questions, with every piece fit in Truth's puzzle you get
two more pieces of tension. But at that time, the picture of the puzzle could be predicted, enough so that rules are
rules of restricted. For now, you can create the puzzle piece and see if it fit, instead of having to find the piece out of
all the infinite.

Dreamers, who have long been awakened, still consider this method, called deduction, forsaken. Like math without
numbers or English without letters, deduction works as simple as breads with butters. Though flawed as kinematics
without velocity or fluid dynamics without viscosity, deduction cannot be interpreted as logic without curiosity.

Without Curiosity. Allows high moments but moment's low by letting weed even get a go. Allows us not to
question, nor to imagine which with I cannot passion. Allows stories to be told in only a way, even if Truth itself has
many says. Without Curiosity. The drive that kills us all. The wings whose only fall. The meaning that stands
infinitely small. Without Curiosity.

I would be deeply enraged, if I see this is where we have swayed.

Have you ever seen a Hero so righteous, that he cannot do any more justice to the world because he already made
the world so perfect, there is no more ‘good’ to be done. Or have you ever seen a Villain so corrupted, that he is
incorruptible because there is nothing more to corrupt him with. But then again, what is the true difference
between a Hero and a Villain? What is the true difference between right and wrong? What is the true difference
between black and white but a shade? A shade that we define. A shade that we put limits and bound by an
everlasting sense of ethics. A shade that creates a line of morality, that distinguishes right from wrong. Right
cannot exist without wrong. For a Hero cannot be a Hero, unless there is a Villain. But sometimes, a Hero loses his
sense of morality, as he realizes meaningless in existence. Sometimes, a Hero forgets what he is fighting for, as he
discovers a hidden realm underneath all others. Sometimes, a Hero looks beyond the darkness in night, as he
becomes a seeker of truth. Sometimes, a Hero must become a White Knight.

For science and religion both questions the same question. Both odes the same ode. Both seeks the same seek.
Both truths the same truth. For I see one, but functions as none, whose difference, between science and religion,
are the separate answers to the same question: truth. But truth is not knowledge nor laws nor equations- …but

4
understanding of nature and the formulation of its derivations. For there are reasons for things to be. An entity to
purpose you see. Often called God but truth to me.

(During school in a class, the matter of beliefs concerning truth raised <reflection upon JJ Krishnamurthy's "The
Awakening of Intelligence">)

Student A: Well, Sudhir, explain how else this whole place functions."

Sudhir: Science.

Student A: But, science is never an exact. I mean scientists can never deem with exactness and full correctness that
science is of full truth. Even laws are theories and can never be deemed as truth.

Sudhir: (Drops mousetrap). Ah, see! The mousetrap fell. Surely, the Law of Gravity is but a mere theory, but even
then, the mousetrap fell. You are very correct in saying that all laws are not laws at all but mere theories, and
theories are of never suggestive, that it is of the truth…BUT...I have dropped this mousetrap, and it fell to earth.
(Picks up mousetrap and throws it across the room). I have thrown this mousetrap and it still accelerates to the
Earth. So I can deduce that there must be a force working on the mousetrap and this is called the gravitational
force. Scientists have continued, but with obvious better testing procedures, to deduce that mass attracts mass and
have defined this logic, mathematically, for simplicity. Anyhow, though these things are just mere theories, we can
test them again and again and again and again and we will see that they still hold true. This is the very nature of
scientific procedure."

Teacher: Then Sudhir, I completely agree with you but what causes gravity?"

Sudhir: General and Special Theory of Relativity.

Teacher: What causes this theory of relativity?

Sudhir: The simple existence of space-time

Teacher: What causes this space-time to exist?

Sudhir: The nature of the universe.

Teacher: Sudhir, you have not answered my question. Space-time is a property of the universe, but why? And
furthermore, where do we come from?

Sudhir: Big Bang.

Teacher: What caused Big Bang?

Sudhir: Inflationary Theory.

Teacher: What caused that?

Sudhir: A reversible curvature.

Teacher: And what caused that?

5
Sudhir: I wonder too, for I do not know.

Teacher: See Sudhir, that is of which is God. For science can only answer so many questions but they approach the
one unknown- God.

Sudhir: Just because something is unknown does not necessarily mean that it was created by God. And for that
matter let us define God to be this unexamined, that is the unknown. Then it follows that truth manifests in God as
God manifests in truth. So this truth is also this unknown- this unmanifest. Then "intelligence comes into being
when the brain discovers its fallibility, when it discovers, what it is capable of, and what it is not." (-Krishnamurti).
Hence this is all God's manifestation of Truth. Truth's manifestation of Truth. Truth. That is, the unknown. Then
truth is the unknown as God is the unexamined, so God and truth are of but equal concepts. Under such parameter,
I ode not just to truth, I ode to God. I seek not just to truth, I seek to God. I believe not just in truth, I believe in God .

"whose surface is Truth, but within is God"

"It is easy to complicate the simple, but difficult to simplify the complex"

"Instead of asking 'What is Truth?', it is easier to ask 'What is not Truth?'"

"Did God create Man or did Man create God?"

"The source of great evil is the source of greater good."

“If mathematics is language, then physics is craft. But if someone were to ask me which I prefer more, I would
simply reply we learn how to write in order to describe; we learn how to read in order to comprehend; so I learn
how to math in order to physics.”

“It takes one man to speak the truth, but it takes half the population to be the truth.”

“Truth is not my cause, it is my effect.”

“If God were a light bulb, they would be its Thomas Edison. If God were physics, we would be the laymen. If God
were true, I would be false.”

“Is lack of knowledge innocence, or is fulfillment of knowledge corruption? Then I would rather teach the man
with the curious heart, then the man with the arrogant mind. Then I would rather myself to observe passionately,
then to think ignorantly. Then I would rather heart, then brain; for the former can create the latter, while the latter
can only destroy the former.”

“There is nothing more grand, nothing more noble, nothing more tolerable, than nothing more but to seek truth.”

“To live a life that is not a seeker of truth, is to live a life that is not worth living.”

With the sun pointed opposite, and the stairs never infinite, even shadows collapse. For even shadows distort as
they climb, in a discontinuous manifestation, step by step. Yet at the stairs which lead no stairs, and shadows
merge below into the hollow of inner peace, all was but an interruption- like a subtle ripple in a momentous sea.

6
 When all is little, littled and weak
it is the truth that we must seek.
When all is riddle, riddled the shown
it is the truth that must be known.
When all is fiddle, fiddled is lore
it is the truth that is our core.

With eyes I shall always seek the truth. With mouth I shall always speak the truth.
With ears I shall always hear the truth. And with heart I shall never fear the truth.
But even if eyes be blinded, mouth be torned, ears be deafed, and heart be numbed,
With god I shall always be the truth.

I understand that anything else but to seek the truth is tautological and so one must detach from the meaningless manifestations within truth,
yet without loss of the wholeness of truth. But I find myself in a situation I had thought already be completed, and that is to detach thyself from.
I have detached myself from most , and most emotions to only its remains of compulsions, passions, and sorrows. But there has been an emotion
that blinds the seeker of truth, wrought by childhood and simulated by loneliness, hidden in its very foundations- the overwhelming, irrevocable
and unconditional love. I speak not of love as the passion, but love as an object attracted to thy loneliness, and I must detach myself from love as
tolerably as I have the other emotions and manifestations. To whom this love is aimed at is fixed- or perhaps the image of a shadow- and with
crafting hesitation of fears and shedding sorrows of tears, I must detach myself from whom I love, as to be a seeker of truth. I understand that
all logic and emotions matter not, but that the truth is of only meaning and that is which I seek with all sincerity and genuine affection, but I
have been told by the closeness of my honesty that passion fades. Regardless of this meaningless love to an individual, or attachment to the
mysticism and spirituality of things- I must, even with love or hate, continue to seek the truth. If my passion ever begins to sway from truth, I will
still with all sincerity and genuine affection, continue to be a seeker of truth. For the lack of all else, and the presence of just one greed- to seek
the truth- is deemed not by its magnitude, but by its existence; so even a small lotus is but the only one large lotus untouched by water. If I ever
become detached from love in all contexts, I will still with all sincerity and genuine affection, continue to be a seeker of truth. For I do not wish to
exist in states of attachment with only acknowledgments of the necessity and purity of detachment; as would be living in truth even in an aware
enlightenment, without seeking the truth in full enlightenment. If I be blinded on the preference to seek happiness over the truth, I will still with
all sincerity and genuine affection, continue to be a seeker of truth. For I cannot allow myself to interfere with thyself; as the source of great evil
is the source of greater good. If by any means I surrender to these meaningless manifestations, I will still with all sincerity and genuine affection,
continue to be a seeker of truth. For I cannot adhere within truth, but I must adhere without- in order to be its seeker; as I cannot surrender the
results to god, I must surrender god to the results. If by any bias or prejudice I come to pass these trials of god, I will still with all sincerity and
genuine affection, continue to be a seeker of truth. For it is not that I must run away, it is that I must run to; as meaningless as the lesser truth, I
must be its seeker to and for the greater truth. We are not the hands of gods, nor the feats of demons, but the hearts of men. And with every
heart in this man-I will still with all sincerity and genuine affection, continue to be a seeker of truth. To be cleansed as a man that is living, is
better than to be cleansed as a man that is dying. For I understand my words here, allows there to exist all so that is good and yet all that is evil.
I will still with all sincerity and genuine affection, continue to be a seeker of truth: this is my Oath and my Ode to the truth of all plural truths.

“I come to see, the truth with me

but all I find, is that I’m blind.”

“There is a difference between a cripple that is whole and a whole that is cripple: the former is what the latter
seeks.”

PS: I do not believe in god just use god to personify truth. (though im open minded to enlightment and truth)

7
 1

Theoretical Introduction to Formal Observation

God: “Son, we know because of our being. But what is it that we know?”

“The Seeker: “We know the truth in wholeness”

God: “And how else might another being know it?”

8
The entire universe, in order to be understood, has to be expressible. In order to be expressible, it has to
be logical. In order to be logical, the universe must be simplified. Yet the most understandable,
expressible, and logical method of simplifying concepts of the observed, is mathematics. Yet math
requires quantities, variables, and numbers- so then the question arises: how can the universe be
quantified? There are three fundamental, observable quantities to the universe: Length, Time, and Mass
of which scientists can measure and therefore quantify. These are actually a quality to a quantity,
otherwise known as dimensions which are incompatible. For you cannot compare the taste of food to
the smell of flowers- they are of different qualities. Likewise, length cannot be compared to time nor
mass and vice versa.

[𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ] ≠ [𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠] ≠ [𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒]

For how can a certain length represent a certain time…or a mass equating to a certain length? They
cannot because they are values independent to each other. Just like smells cannot abstractly equal
tastes because they are different genres or fields, these physical quantities cannot equal other because
of their independent quality, that is, they have different dimensions. So a dimension is defined to be a
physical nature of a quantity; in the observable universe, all quantities constitute from these
fundamental dimensions: Length, Mass, and Time.

A unit of length represents distance- this quantity can be expressed visually as length is the distance
between two points (let us say A and B). Scientists call this measure of length with units such as feet,
meters, miles, etc.; all those unit quantities represent the dimension of length, that is they measure
distance.

That length represents, specifically, how much is between object A and object B.

A unit of mass represents how much is within a(n) object(s) or the amount of "manifestation" or
"occupancy" within a given space- (let us say A and B). This amount of how much is in there is called
matter, so mass is (for now, which implies that later we will find another definition of mass) the
measure of how much matter is within a substance. The specific units for mass are grams, kilograms,
etc; all of which represents the dimension of substance within an object

Notice that the mass of object B is greater than the mass of object A because there is more within B
then there is A.

9
(Note: it should not necessarily mean that size dictates mass as shown in the figure above; consider
rocks stacked in a box- no matter the size of the box the mass depends the amount of rocks if we
assume the box has no initial mass. In this sense, size does not directly relate to mass in a necessary
manner)

A unit of time represents how long an interval has under gone. The rate at which time changes is a
constant(for now we can say that time is a constant, however in the latter aspects we shall return to its
own relativity) and quantifies how long events are (let us say A and B). The specific units for time are
seconds, hours, etc; these all measure the interval of events.

The time interval itself is to express how much "time" has elapsed, in other words how long an event
occurred.

However, notice that there are multiple units for the same dimension such as length. There might be
meters, inches, feet, miles, furlongs, leagues, fathoms, nautical miles, etc. Yet, since these are all units of
length and a measurement of distance, the question arises what is the international units. For example,
U.S.A's currency is in dollars while Indian currency is in Rupees and these currencies function
independently; however, math and physics is an international and universal concept- what should be
the universal units? With length, physicists want to deal with units that can be applied universally for
majority of observable phenomena, and eventually decided the standard international unit for length
should be in meters. Since meters are not too big or too small (in our daily activities), they can quantify
long and small distances easier than, say, miles. Though miles can be used to express long distance
travel, it would not be effective or practical using its units to find the distance between a person's feet
to that person's head, and since practical physics involves neither that of the too big nor the too small
but of just the relative "average", the length must represent such. Similarly, scientists agreed that for
time, the universal units be seconds, and for mass, the universal units be kilograms. These standard and
international units themselves are called the SI Units (International System of Units). Below is a table
showing SI Units for the three basic dimensions: length, mass, and time.

10
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI

meter m length l

kilogram kg mass m

second s time t

However, the scopes of SI base units also are limited to the average size. For instance, it would be a
terribly difficult number to express in base SI units the distance between the Earth to the Sun. Also, it
would be a terribly small number to express the distance between two atoms in base units. So then,
scientists decided to put prefixes onto the SI units that either multiply or divide it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI
Standard prefixes for the SI units of measure

Name deca- hecto- kilo- mega- giga- tera- peta- exa- zetta- yotta-

Multiples Symbol da h k M G T P E Z Y

Factor 100 101 102 103 106 109 1012 1015 1018 1021 1024

Subdivisions Name deci- centi- milli- micro- nano- pico- femto- atto- zepto- yocto-

11
 Symbol d c m µ n p f a z y

Factor 100 10−1 10−2 10−3 10−6 10−9 10−12 10−15 10−18 10−21 10−24

Simply add the prefix before the unit of measure to either multiply or divide the unit base value. For
example, kilometer means 1000 meters (or 10³ meters) and millimeter means .001 meters (or 10`³
meters). With the standard prefixes for SI units, small or large quantities can be expressed practically.

However, what exactly can be defined a meter, a kilogram, or a second? For any arbitrary definition of
such basic dimensions, the tests’ results (corresponding to such definitions) need to be consistent. So
these unit base quantities were given values to certain phenomena in the universe that always observed
to have remained constant. For instance, a simple definition of a meter could be the distance of three
steps anyone walks; though there are so many variables: a person’s foot may vary, a person’s leg may be
longer, a person might travel farther with each step, etc- and these all might cause the person to walk
more or less of the distance each time. Since there are many variables in that testing procedure,
scientists want to pinpoint a definition of a meter with as close accuracy as possible. If they had gone
with 1 meter is 3 steps anyone walks, each individual persons may constantly arrive with different values
of lengths for a meter, and then a meter cannot be universally understood nor accepted. So a meter
must be some distance that when tested for again, will lead to the same result (or as close as feasible).
Then scientists thought hard and asked themselves what definition should we give a meter such if we
test for it again and again, the results will be consistent? Since light (a phenomena with a constant speed
otherwise known as the speed of light) travels at a constant speed (in a vacuum), if scientists measure
how far light travels in a certain time frame, then that can define a meter precisely such if they test
again and again for a meter, that data will be consistent. So the meter is the length of the path travelled
by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299 792 458 of a second. If scientists test for a meter again and
again with this as the definition of a meter, their test results will be extremely accurate and precise
because of the constant nature of light. For example, let us hypothetically situate that a specific car
always and constantly travels at a certain speed (let us say 60 miles an hour). Then if we want to
determine what the exact distance of 60 miles is, all we do is measure the length of the distance that
special car travelled after one hour; since the car travels at a constant speed of 60 miles per hour, then
after one hour it should have traveled 60 miles. So if we measure that distance the car travels in one
hour, we can properly define that to be 60 miles and if we test for it again, the car will still travel 60
miles per hour and we will still get the same length the car traveled after one hour. But how can we
know that the car is travelling at 60 miles per hour? Light travels at some speed but it travels at a
constant speed and so regardless of however fast its travelling, we just arbitrarily define a meter to be
the distance light travels in 1⁄299 792 458 of a second- so our definitions are actually quite arbitrary.

12
Using this concept of consistency to define a kilogram, scientists approach a dilemma - what substance
in the universe is a constant 1 kilogram? Since there exists no such constant (or that such a constant is
hard to locate and therefore difficult to define), scientists must artificially define a kilogram. So scientists
exercised a rather ingenious method- grab a specific substance and define it to be a kilogram. For
example, we can define a kilogram to be the mass of the monitor in my house. Then from that, I can
approximate the mass of all other objects in my house by comparing them to my definition of a
kilogram- my monitor. My lamp might have a mass twice as much as the monitor- so (due to my
definition of a kilogram) my lamp is 2 kilograms. With this whole respect, scientists decided to
universally call a specific substance- a platinum iridium alloy- the exact 1 kilogram, and in turn all other
masses are to be compared to this exact "value" of a kilogram. This specific platinum iridium that has
mass of exactly 1 kilogram is called the International Prototype Kilogram (IPK) which defines the
kilogram (this IPK now resides in a vault at the BIPM in Sèvres).

To define the second, a consistent natural phenomenon must exist such that the interval of that natural
event is a constant. I can define a second to be the time interval it takes for Sudhir to clap his hands; so
the interval it takes to clap my hands is defined to be a second. However notice that sometimes I can
take a longer time to clap my hands or a shorter time, so a second will always vary. Then I must find
another phenomenon where if I test for the time interval again and again, the passage of time remains a
constant- so that interval can be defined as a second. Observations have shown such a natural property,
that when a specific atom at a specific state exists, it radiates at constant intervals. So a second is
defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation of the cesium 133 atom (at a
certain state: when the Kelvin Temperature is 0 and there is no movement of the atom at ground state).

These are the basic dimensions of the universe which can be used to express and quantify nature. As
stated before, these dimensions have no correlation to each other, as they are independent, and so
mathematically:

[𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ] ≠ [𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠] ≠ [𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒]

This essentially means that meters can never equal to seconds or to kilograms, and vice versa, as these
physical qualities have different meanings: length measures distance, time measures duration, and mass
measures matter within. However, the dimensions length can equal other dimensions of length, mass
can equal mass and time can equal time. This can simply be mathematically expressed:

[𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ] = [𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ]

[𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠] = [𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠]

[𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒] = [𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒]

As 1 second equals 1 second, the same dimensions can equal the same dimensions. It would be
incorrect to say 1 second equals 1 meter because they both measure different qualities. So dimensions
must be analyzed to "check for equality". If a physicist declares that 300 seconds equals 4 meters, then
through this process of analyzing the dimensions, one can conclude this declaration is incorrect as time
cannot equal length. This process is called dimensional analysis and can be used to check whether

13
dimensions of the answer are correct. If this physicist had declared that 300 seconds is 5 minutes, then
through dimensional analysis, one can conclude that he may be right because both dimensions measure
the same quality: time. However, if the physicist declares that 300 seconds is 300 minutes, through
dimensional analysis he STILL may be right, since both the dimensions measure the same quality: time.
Even though 300 seconds does not equal 300 minutes, dimensional analysis does not involve the
numbers or quantities, but their units or qualities; that is, their dimension.

If a student suddenly tells his teacher that: 275𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 ∗ 34.21𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑠 = 456𝑘𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠, the teacher
would show the student false, dimensionally, because 275 meters is a measurement of length, 34.21
seconds is a measurement of time, and 456 kilograms is a measurement of mass. So by substituting this
back into the student's argument, we find that the student urges:[𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ] ∗ [𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒] = [𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠].
However, this statement is false because [𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ] ∗ [𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒] only equals a[𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ] ∗ [𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒] , not a
mass. If another student suggested that 275𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 ∗ 34.21𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑠 = 1110𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑡 ∗ 234𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑠 ,
then the teacher can show that dimensionally this statement can be correct as meters measures length,
seconds measures time, feet measures length, and milliseconds measures time. So dimensionally, the
student is claiming: [𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ] ∗ [𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒] = [𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ] ∗ [𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒] which is a true statement. Through
dimensional analysis, this Student's units or dimensions are consistent, so his statement might be
correct. For dimensional analysis does not guarantee whether a formula is correct, but only shows that
it might be correct or is incorrect altogether. In another example, as student might claim 5 meters is
equal to 6 meters; using dimensional analysis, this student might be correct since both these quantities
measure length so both their dimensions are the same but notice how the student's argument is false
because clearly 5 meters does not equal 6 meters. Hence, dimensional analysis cannot confirm
statements or formulas, but only check for equality up to a point whether they might be correct or
whether they are incorrect. For the dimensions only refers to units, not the number itself and
dimensional analysis only checks to see if the units are correct, not the actual numbers themselves.

Using these concepts of dimensional analysis and the basic dimensions themselves, scientists have been
able to conceive ingenious ideas using the three basic dimensions: Length, Time, and Mass. By
manipulating concepts of length and time dimensions mathematically, scientists forged the beginning
but never ending path of physics called kinematics. Defined to be the mechanics of movement of an
object without reference to the causation of movement, Kinematics just deals with abstract concepts of
how normal objects move, not about what caused the objects to move. Essentially, kinematics is the
study of objects movement and has been cleverly derived by the concepts and manipulation of the
fundamental dimensions.

14
 2

Theoretical Introduction to Classical Kinematics

God: “Not moving is as inherent as moving.”

“The Seeker: “How so?”

God: “The former is a special case of the latter.”

15
In order to understand kinematics, we must recompose it. For kinematics is just the answers to previous
scientific questions, and since we must re-derive the answers, we must re-ask the questions the
scientists have asked. For scientists have asked: How fast is an object travelling? What does it mean to
travel fast? What does it mean to travel slow? These answers which scientists have forged have lead to
what is now the founded kinematics. Yet, since we must develop kinematics for our own understanding,
we must answer these same questions. How fast is an object travelling? What does it mean to travel
fast? What does it mean to travel slow? If an object travels fast, that means that the object covers a lot
of distance in a short amount of time. Likewise, if an object travels slow, that means that the object
covers little distance in a long amount of time. Scientists coined the term for how fast an object is
travelling, as speed. Mathematically and logically, the concept of speed can be defined as:

𝑑
𝑠=
∆𝑡

where 's' refers to speed; 'd' refers to distance covered; and '∆t' refers to the time elapsed. For
simplicity, let us just consider ∆𝑡 as t because they both mean the time elapsed.

𝑑
𝑠=
𝑡

All that this expression means is characterized under the following: imagine two particles in empty
space, objects 1 and 2, both of which are simply moving. Object 1, let us say, has more speed than
object 2. If object 1 is travelling 10 meters per second and object 2 is travelling 5 meters per second,
then after 1 second object one would have covered 10 meters and object 2 would have covered 5
meters. Object one would have travelled a greater distance than object 2 in the same amount of time
simply because of their respective speeds. Generalizing the speeds to any arbitrary values- 𝑠1 and 𝑠2 for
objects 1 and 2, respectively, all speed measures is a distance covered per the time it takes to travel that
distance. Hence speed is just some length over some time- the rate at which an object moves. With the
case of object 1 and object 2, for any arbitrary speeds they travel, the concept of speed is the same- the
measure of how much distance they covered per how much elapsed time it took. At some instance,
denoted instant 1, Object 1 and Object 2 are recorded as follows-

16
These objects at this instance lie on the shown coordinates, or simply they exist in that spatial order.
Since these objects are, as stated, moving, let us see where the objects are located after some time has
passed (some arbitrary time denoted as t). After this t amount of time, the object's positions are
recorded as follows-

At this latter instant (or after some amount of time), called instant 2, notice that both objects moved
from the previous position after some time. Yet scientists inquire "how fast did these objects move?" So
a logical representation of this "how fast the objects went" or speed is distance over time. Essentially
how much length these objects are covering with respect to how long it took. As we can see, after some
amount of time object 1 travelled farther than object 2 traveled in the same amount of time. Hence,
Object 1 is travelling faster than object 2, in other words the speed of object 1 is greater than that of
object 2. Let us expand this to pure logic or mathematics and combine Instant 1 with Instant 2 to have a
greater understanding.

Let us denote that distance traveled by Object 1 as 𝑑1 and the distance traveled by Object 2 𝑑2 .Since the
time at which these positions were recorded is the same to both objects (i.e. the objects traveled during
the same time interval), it is clear that Object 1 has traveled a greater distance than Object 2,so

𝑑1 > 𝑑2

17
If I divide both sides by t (the time it took the object to move these respective distances), then we can
get a better logic of speed

𝑑1 𝑑2
>
𝑡 𝑡

For notice how distance divided by time is speed. The distance object one traveled divided by the time it
took to travel that distance is simply the speed of object 1; likewise, the distance object 2 traveled
divided by the time it took to travel that distance is simply the speed of object 2. So this equality above
leads to this logical statement:

𝑠1 > 𝑠2
Or the speed of object 1 is greater than the speed of object 2. Though it might seem obvious that the
speed of object 1 is greater than object 2 (as one can clearly see in the pictures), this mathematical
representation of speed should then become obvious. For we can dimensionally just rewrite speed as

[𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ]
𝑠=
[𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒]

that is, speed just measures how much length is travelled in a certain amount of time. So with this
better understanding of speed (how much time an object takes travel a certain length- how fast an
object is going), then we can mathematically manipulate it to form another concept. Since speed is

𝑑
𝑠=
𝑡

If we multiply t to both sides of this equation we can form this concept:

𝑑
𝑠(𝑡) = (𝑡)
𝑡

𝑑 = 𝑠𝑡

So if an object is travelling at some speed for some amount of time, the distance that object traveled is
its speed by its time. So if an object were traveling 1meter per second, than the distance the object
covered after one second is simply 1 meter. If the object travels at the same speed for, now, two
seconds, than the object travels a distance of 2 meters. Using this concept of distance and its relation to
speed with respect to time has allowed scientists to formulate another concept. Let this thought
experiment be as follows: take an object traveling ,in empty space, at some arbitrary speed s for some
arbitrary time t. Then the distance d this object travels is simply d = st. However, the question is asked-
in what direction does this object travel? For instance, speed measures distance to time, yet distance
measures just a length. I can travel 1 meter walking forward but I can also travel one meter walking
backward and I can travel 1 meter in any direction. Yet that direction is ignored because all speed is
concerned is with the distance, not the direction of the distance. For let us say I 1 travel at a speed 1
meter per second for 1 second. Then the distance I traveled is 1 meter, but that 1 meter can be in any
direction. For speed does not tell us the direction of where an object is traveling because speed is based

18
 off distance and distance is not based on direction, but that of length. If I walk north for 1 meter in the
time interval of 1 second, then my speed is 1 meter per second. And if I walk south for 1 meter in 1
second, my speed is also 1 meter per second, and if I walk east or west or any direction for 1 meter in 1
second, my speed is always 1 meter per second. My speed does not change based off the direction I
travel in due to this relationship between distance and direction: distance does not measure direction.
So this object can be travelling that speed in any direction: North, South, East, and West or any direction
in between. Though its speed can be in any direction, as its distance traveled can also be in any
direction, the distance itself is a constant since 𝑑 = 𝑠𝑡.

Basically, this object can be travelling at the speed s in any direction since speed does not quantify
direction. So the actual distance covered would be as this:

The object could travel that distance, d (or d=st), in any direction. So the object traveling at some speed
for some amount of time obviously covers some amount of distance. But since speed only measures the
distance an object travels to the time it took to travel that distance, speed cannot measure direction. So
scientists realized that speed just measures how fast something travels and not what direction it travels
in. Hence, speed is known as a scalar quantity because it represents a certain magnitude without any
direction itself. Yet scientists want to measure the speed as well as the direction speed is in. They want

19
to convert speed into a vector quantity, a number that gives both magnitude and direction, in this case a
value that gives both speed and direction of the speed. With this, comes the ideal that developed
velocity.

Physicists want the velocity to measure both speed and the direction of speed, yet mathematically how
can this concept be expressed? We know velocity cannot equate to distance over time as that just tells
us speed and not the direction, so what formula for velocity can express not only speed but also the
direction of speed? The brilliance of mankind has articulated such an elegant mathematical definition:

∆𝑥
𝑣̅ =
∆𝑡

Where the 𝑣̅ represents average velocity, ∆𝑥 refers to change in position, and ∆𝑡 refers to change in
time or time elapsed. For simplicity, let us just consider ∆𝑡 as t since they both mean the time elapsed.

∆𝑥
𝑣̅ =
𝑡

This is very similar to the definition of speed, except that distance d is replaced with change in position,
also called displacement∆𝑥. So in order to understand the difference between speed and velocity, we
must understand this difference between distance and displacement. Let us take this example to
distinctly clarify between displacement and distance: take an object on a level surface-

Let us say that the object moves to the left at some speed for some amount of time. Then that means
that this object will travel towards the left.

The distance between the object before and after it moved can be thought as taking a string to put
between the object and measure the length of the string. Distance is simply the length between these
two points, in this case the two objects. Now try to think of an instance where distance is a negative
value and eventually you will run into a conclusion that distance is never negative. For when in this

20
universe can length between two points be negative? It can be zero, and some positive distance, but
never a negative distance between two objects. So this distance traveled by this object is a positive
number. To show this, let us arbitrarily say that this distance between the objects lessened-

Notice that there is still some distance between the object before and after moving. Now let us even
lessen this distance:

The object still travels some positive distance, though a very minimal gap between the objects. Now let
us say that there is 0 distance between the object and the object after travelling, in other words, let us
say that the object has not even moved.

Notice how the objects overlap, simply because the object has 0 speed so the object cannot travel any
distance. Now let us take the case where the object travels in the other direction

If the object travels in this direction now, then that means the object moves in the direction

21
The key point here is that the distance the object travels is still positive. There is still length between the
object before and after it moved which means that the distance is forever and always positive (or zero if
it did not move). So even if the object traveled farther outward, the distance is still positive because
length between two points will and always will be positive (unless the length is 0)

So even if the object travels in this direction, the distance is positive. This means that distance is either 0
(there is no length between) or positive. Notice how distance never reveals anything about direction as
it is a positive magnitude. Since distance is used to measure speed, and distance cannot measure
direction, then speed can also measure direction. So the speed must always be positive or zero and
cannot reveal anything about direction.

But displacement tells us the change in position which we can mathematically define. Take a Number
Line:

where the number line represents the position of the object. Since the object starts from 0, its initial
position is 0. Now displacement, remember, is change in position which logically means the final
position minus initial position as this tells us how much the position has changed. Then it follows change
in position is simply:

∆𝑥 = 𝑥𝑓 − 𝑥𝑖

or change in position ∆𝑥 is the final position 𝑥𝑓 minus the initial 𝑥𝑖 . In this case, the object on the
number line has the initial position is 0. Now notice how the object has speed directed toward the right,

22
and on the number line that would mean that for whatever final position, it too must be positive
because the object is moving to the right (where we define on the number line to be positive). Since the
change in position is the final position minus initial position.

∆𝑥 = 𝑥𝑓 − 𝑥𝑖

and final position is a positive number and the initial position is 0,

∆𝑥 = [+] − 0

∆𝑥 = [+]

so velocity, which is change in position over the time it takes to travel, is:

∆𝑥
𝑣̅ =
𝑡
[+]
𝑣̅ =
𝑡

However, notice that time t is a positive number because there is some interval between these events
and time cannot be negative (time does not run backwards) so then velocity can simply be:

[+]
𝑣̅ =
[+]

and a positive number divided by a positive number is a positive number, so velocity is

𝑣̅ = [+]

If, however, the object speeds in the opposite direction on this number line…

then

∆𝑥 = 𝑥𝑓 − 𝑥𝑖

We know that the initial position of the object is 0, but the final position of the object or where the
object is after it moves is negative. Notice that the object will be travelling towards the left hand side of

23
the number line and that position there is defined to be negative. So the final position is negative and
the initial position is 0. Substituting this in mathematically to the definition of displacement:

∆𝑥 = 𝑥𝑓 − 𝑥𝑖

∆𝑥 = [−] − 0

∆𝑥 = [−]

In other words, the change in position is negative. Since velocity is

∆𝑥
𝑣̅ =
𝑡

and ∆𝑥 is a negative number in this case, we form

[−]
𝑣̅ =
𝑡

However, as discussed before, the time elapsed by the object is always positive

[−]
𝑣̅ =
[+]

Since a negative number divided by a positive number is negative, velocity in this case is

𝑣̅ = [−]

Basically the ∆𝑥 accounts for the direction, in other words, displacement includes not only the distance,
but also the direction of the distance. So this negative velocity simply means that the object is travelling
in the negative direction, or in this case the object is moving towards the left hand side. When the
velocity was positive, that simply meant that the object was travelling towards the positive direction, or
in this case, the object moved towards the right hand side. So if I travel 1 meter forward, the distance I
traveled is one meter and the displacement is also one meter. If I, though, travel one meter backward,
then the distance I traveled is one meter but the displacement is negative one meter. So the magnitude
or scalar of displacement is distance and distance with a direction, or the vector quantity of distance is
displacement. Due to this, since speed is just distance over time and velocity is just displacement over
time, speed is the magnitude of velocity and speed with a direction is velocity itself. So a general
understanding of velocity is simply speed with a direction.

For example, on a freeway there is let us say a car that travels to the left covering 2 meters for every 1
second. Then if I define everything to the left to be negative (like as the number line), the velocity of the
car is negative 2 meters per second. But notice how the speed of the car is just 2 meters per second as
speed is velocity without direction. Likewise, if the car is travelling to the right covering 2 meters every 1
second, then the velocity of the car is positive 2 meters per second. And notice how the speed is also 2
meters per second as it is velocity without direction.

24
For now, let us consider motion of an object in just one dimension- as in the number line scenarios. Let
the object just move in one axes (up/down or left/right) and not on multiple axis since then, we as
scientists will find too complicated (or perhaps not later on). However, let us master motion in just one-
dimension to combine 2 one-dimensional motions together to form two dimensional motions. So let us
proceed with some general inquiries regarding displacement. Notice how in the prior examples, the
velocity was strictly based off from displacement, and displacement was strictly based off some
coordinate system, (in that case, the displacement was based from the number line) but it comes to our
attention as to whether or not that coordinate system is an arbitrary decision. In other words, can we as
an observer place any imaginary coordinate system on the space where the object moves? Would it
affect the velocity we measure? This question can be answered through a story as follows:

Take a crow that sits at some tree all by him/her self. The crow, however, wants to go to his other crow
friends but they are at another tree. Now there is a student's house in the middle between these two
trees. The student stands right outside his/her house and notices that the tree with the crow all alone is
at the left side, and that tree with many crows is on the right hand side.

The red dot is the lonely crow, the black dots are the other friendly crows, and the blue dot is the
student observing these trees and crows. Then this student (who takes a physics course) coincidentally
has a measuring rod and an accurate clock. Soon, the lonely crow moves from the tree to the other tree-
and the student quickly measures the time the crow takes to travel from one tree to another (we will
assume the student's data and measurements are accurate). The student finds that it took the crow
exactly 1 second to travel to the other tree; then taking out his measuring rod, the student measures the
distance between the two trees to be 1 meter and then he concludes that the speed of the crow was 1
meter per second. However, this student then decides to calculate the velocity, but since he must find
velocity, he must measure displacement. In order to measure a change in position, the student must
already have a reference plane by which he/she can calculate the displacement. So this student decides
to create the reference frame as a number line where the position of the lonely crow is 0 so the final
position is 1 meter (since the distance traveled by the crow is 1 meter).

25
If we define our number line to be where the initial position of the lonely crow is 0 meter, then since the
crow travels 1 meter to get to the other tree, the crow's final position is 1 meter. So the total
displacement of the crow is the change in its position, that is logically:

∆𝑥 = 𝑥𝑓 − 𝑥𝑖

∆𝑥 = 1 − 0

∆𝑥 = 1 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟

So then the change in the crow's position is 1 meter. And since it took the crow 1 second to change its
position by 1 meter:

∆𝑥
𝑣̅ =
𝑡
1 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝑣̅ =
1 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑

or the velocity is simply 1 meter per second

Now the physics student thinks and wonders how the velocity were to change if he/she had changed
the number line, that is if the student had another reference frame. Say then that the student decided
to call the initial position of the lonely crow to be negative 1 meter (notice the physics student is not
saying the length is negative 1 meter, just the position of the crow is negative one meter from the origin
by creating a new reference line). For in order to measure position, the student must have something to
"refer" to so the student can relate that to the position of the object. The student must create a
"reference" frame or in this case a reference line so the student can compare the position before and
after the crow moved to the tree.

26
Notice that the distance the crow travels is 1 meter, so even if the initial position is negative one, the
final position would be just 0. So the displacement is

∆𝑥 = 𝑥𝑓 − 𝑥𝑖

∆𝑥 = 0 − (−1)

∆𝑥 = 1 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟

The displacement is the same 1 meter. So the velocity is the same 1 meter per second. Even if the
physics student changed the reference frame by which to measure the position of the crow, the change
in position is the same. Even if the final and initial positions vary, the change in position is the same.
Even if the student were too make up some now arbitrary reference frame, the change in position is still
the same. So the physics student tries just that- instead of creating some initial position as 0, 1, -1, or
any specific number, the student decides to call it a variable.

27
Notice how the final position, for any arbitrary position x_i, is simply x_i + 1. This is because the crow has
traveled 1 meter, so it follows that the final position must be one more than the initial position.

𝑥𝑓 = 𝑥𝑖 + 1

∆𝑥 = 𝑥𝑓 − 𝑥𝑖

∆𝑥 = (𝑥𝑖 + 1) − 𝑥𝑖

∆𝑥 = 1

Since for any reference frame the displacement is still the same, the velocity also remains the same 1
meter per second.

The moral of this story is simply no matter what reference frame, by which an observer measures the
initial and final positions, the change in position or displacement does not change. So velocity does not
change based off any random frame of reference by which the observer measures the object's position,
as the change in position will be the same in every case.

Now that this inquiry has been settled, let us extend the concepts of displacement and positions with
respect to velocity.

∆𝑥
𝑣̅ =
∆𝑡
(𝑥𝑓 − 𝑥𝑖 )
𝑣̅ =
𝑡
� = (𝑥𝑓 − 𝑥𝑖 )
𝑣𝑡

� + 𝑥𝑖
𝑥𝑓 = 𝑣𝑡

This equation just means that the final position is simply the initial position plus the velocity by the time.
If you notice, this statement basically implies how the final position varies based off initial position,
velocity, and the time velocity was applied onto the object.

With this furthered understanding of the relationship between position to velocity, scientists decided to
graph that data. This simple concept of velocity was further expressed by explaining position as a
relation to time (position as a function of time). Basically, record and measure the object's position, as
time changes and record and plot that data on a graph.

So scientists just observed the position of the object at certain points in time and graphically displayed
the observations as to embrace fuller control of the principles of velocity. For example, let us say an
observer records the position of the object at a specific time. Then the recorded position vs time graph
would graphically represent:

28
Basically, there is an object that starts at some position (let us say 0). Then after some time that object
reaches another position. Then after some time a (some arbitrary time), the objects reaches a position
of x (an arbitrary position). In order to start from the position of 0 and reach a position x after some time
a, the object must have moved, that is the object had to have had a speed and velocity. Now after time
a, notice how the position of the object never changes. Since the position the object does not change,
that means the object is not moving; that is, that object has a velocity of 0 (since there is 0 displacement
or 0 change in position as the object does not change its position). Yet how can we figure out this
velocity specifically? We are given the position and the time, so we must inquire into the logical and
mechanical aspects of velocity- how is it that we can calculate this with such a graph? This graph is
simply x(t) or basically that means how the position varies by time (position as a function of time) and
we know the definition of velocity:

∆𝑥
𝑣̅ =
∆𝑡

The relationship between this (velocity) and the graph lies within the slope. For the slope m of any
arbitrary function f(x) is

∆𝑓(𝑥)
𝑚=
∆𝑥

but notice that f as a function of x 𝑓(𝑥) in this case is simply x as a function of t x(t) and that ∆𝑥 is simply
∆𝑡 . So by substituting, the slope is

∆𝑥
𝑚=
∆𝑡

29
So the slope of this graph (position as a function of time graph) is the change in position over the change
in time. Notice this is the exact definition of an average velocity, so the slope of a position vs time graph
is simply velocity:

∆𝑥
𝑚=
∆𝑡
∆𝑥
𝑣̅ =
∆𝑡

𝑚 = 𝑣̅

This simply means that if we were given a position vs time graph, its slope is the average velocity. To
further demonstrate, take another position vs time graph and using this concept of slope, let us find the
average velocity from time 𝑡𝑖 to time 𝑡𝑓 where the object started at position 𝑥𝑖 and traveled to 𝑥𝑓 .

The slope of the position vs time graph is simply the change in position over the change in time which is
the exact definition of velocity. Measuring the slope between two points of the position vs time graph is
of exact equivalence for measuring the average velocity between two points in time. So if in this case,
the value of 𝑥𝑖 is 1 meter, the value of 𝑥𝑓 is 2 meters, the value of 𝑡𝑖 is 1 second, and the value of 𝑡𝑓 is 2
seconds, then the average velocity this object is travelling is

∆𝑥
𝑣̅ =
∆𝑡
(𝑥𝑓 − 𝑥𝑖 )
𝑣̅ =
(𝑡𝑓 − 𝑡𝑖 )

(2 − 1)
𝑣̅ =
(2 − 1)

1 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝑣̅ =
1 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑

30
This extended development of velocity to see how it relates to a position vs time graph led scientists to
coin what is known as instantaneous velocity. Let us assume a character named Alpha drives his car to
school one particular day. Also, let us record his position vs time graph while Alpha is driving.

First, Alpha hits the pedal and starts driving toward school, but then while driving; Alpha remembers
that he left his backpack home and so goes back home. After Alpha goes back home, Alpha then hits the
pedal and goes on the freeway towards school. However, on the way Alpha encounters a stop sign and
so stops for a long time and the resumes going towards school. Finally, Alpha makes it to school but
sadly he is late and gets detention. Since we have recorded this data translated into a position vs time
graph, we can find the average velocity Alpha traveled throughout the whole trip.

This is the average velocity Alpha covered from starting at home, to reaching school, in other words this
is the average velocity of Alpha's trip. But what does this average velocity mean? Surely it is a change in
position traveled over the time it took to travel, but does that mean the average velocity is the actual
velocity. Surely there is some average velocity traveled here, but notice how the average velocity does

31
not signify the actual velocity that Alpha travels. If, let us just arbitrarily assert, Alpha has an average
velocity of 30 miles per hour, note that when Alpha was at the stop sign, he was not travelling 30 miles
per hour but at that moment he was at the stop sign, Alpha was travelling 0 miles per hour. Then when
Alpha went on the freeway, Alpha was not travelling 30 miles per hour, but faster. When Alpha was
heading back home because of the forgotten backpack, Alpha was not traveling positive 30 miles per
hour, but negative (as he was going backward). Notice how the average velocity does not reveal the
velocity Alpha was travelling at a moment, or at an instant. For even if Alpha took another path to get to
school, and the time it took to get to school and the change in position to get to the school is still the
same, then Alpha's average velocity is still the same.

So even if Alpha never had to go back home to get his backpack and there was no stop sign so his
distance vs position graph looks like this, as long as the displacement to get to school and the time
interval to get to school were the same, Alpha's average velocity does not change. So average velocity
does not describe the actual velocity Alpha travelled to get to school, but rather just the "average" or
mean of all the velocities that Alpha used to get to school.

If a person walks at a constant velocity of 1 meter per second for 1 second, and then the person travels
3 meters per second for 1 second, then the person is displaced by 4 meters. Then the total change in
position is 4 meters and it took the person 2 seconds to change that much in position. So the average
velocity is simply the change in position over the time it took to travel which is 4 meters over 2 seconds
which is 2 meters per second. The person had an average velocity of, therefore, 2 meters per second.
But the person never traveled 2 meters per second, the person traveled as stated only 1 meter per
second and 3 meters per second

In another example, take two student's test scores on a physics test to be: 100 and 90. Then the average
score is 95, but 95 does not mean it is the test scores of either of the students, it just tells the average or
mean of total scores. So if a car travels a velocity of 100 miles per hour for one instant and then 90 miles
per hour for the next instant, then average velocity of these two instances is simple 95 miles per hour.

32
Though 95 miles per hour is not necessarily the velocity of the car at either instance, it is just the
average or mean of those instances.

So now the question comes- how can one describe mathematically, the velocity at an instant? As
average velocity just describes the average rate at which position changes over a time interval,
instantaneous velocity describes the exact rate at which position changes for an instant- for a moment.
But then how long of a time interval is an instant? For we know the definition and concept of velocity
mathematically and logically:

∆𝑥
𝑣̅ =
∆𝑡

So if we know the time interval in which it takes the object to change a known position, than surely
velocity can be measured. But since we want to find an instantaneous velocity or a velocity at an instant,
what is the time interval for that instant? Over an instant or a moment, there is 0 change in time- in fact
that is the very definition of an instant- where the time between two events is 0, that is there is no
interval. But over such a small interval, the object displaces very little as well. Since an instance is when
there is no interval or no change in time, and there is no displacement, to calculate that velocity-

0
𝑣⃗ =
0

(the 𝑣⃗ symbol denotes velocity at an instant or instantaneous velocity)

But even in mathematics this is an undefined number. Since there is mathematical ambiguity finding
velocity like this, where the time interval is 0 or when measuring velocity at an instant which makes
displacement 0, we get an undefined answer. So then we must not use this direct algebraic approach as
to measuring velocity at an instant, but rather calculus. For though dividing by 0 is undefined, if we take
the limit as the time interval approaches 0, we can calculate a measurable instantaneous velocity.

∆𝑥
𝑣⃗ = lim
∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡

𝑑𝑥
𝑣⃗ =
𝑑𝑡

(the 𝑣⃗ symbol denotes velocity at an instant or instantaneous velocity)

If we were given the displacement by time graph:

33
Then the average velocity between the time interval [a,b] is simply the change in position between time
b and a over the time interval itself. But if we were to find the velocity at the instance when time is a,
then simply let the time interval become very small. Since the average velocity is taking the slope of this
graph between two points, if we want to find the velocity at a point, we must find the slope at that
point. But if we lessen the time interval such that it approaches 0, then we are taking the slope between
two points (in this case points a and b) but as those points approach each other (in this case as point b
approaches point a) it follows that taking the slopes between these points approaches the slope at one
point (in this case, point a). To further demonstrate, let us lessen the time interval as to find the
instantaneous slope at time a:

Though this is a better "approximation" of what the velocity at might be, this is still an average velocity
between two points. Since we want to find the velocity at time a, then let the other point approach

34
point a and then take the slope between those two points. In other words, let the ∆𝑡 approach 0- so let
us further lessen ∆𝑡.

There is still some time interval ∆𝑡, but it is relatively small so notice how this velocity, when the time
interval lessens, approximates the actual velocity at a. If we were to take this one step further and
suggest that these points in time are so close together that there is 0 distance between them, that is
when ∆𝑡 approaches 0, we can then take the slope between these two points. But since the points are
actually just one single point- we find the average velocity between a time interval so small that it is the
velocity at an instant.

Since we have shown that the velocity at time a is simply the velocity between a time interval as that
interval becomes such an extremely small quantity, that it approaches 0. Therefore the velocity at an
instant is, once again,

∆𝑥
𝑣⃗ = lim
∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡

𝑑𝑥
𝑣⃗ =
𝑑𝑡

35
Since instantaneous velocity is velocity at an instant, in order to calculate an "instant", the time elapsed
approaches 0. So if we take the limit as the time interval approaches 0, to get the time interval at an
instance, we derive instantaneous velocity.

Now that we have discovered average velocity and instantaneous velocity, scientists stumbled upon a
new and revolutionary concept - acceleration (well all discoveries are "revolutionary"). Velocity causes a
change in position but what causes a change in velocity? Since empirical and observational data shows
that there are very few ideal situations where velocity remains a constant, the mysterious borders and
embodies the change in velocity. What if we take into account the change in velocity (if is there)? Let us
examine Alpha, if you remember, who drove a car through a freeway and a stop sign, so his velocities at
those instances (or any other for that matter) are not necessarily the same. Alpha was driving at a higher
velocity during the ride throughout the freeway rather than driving to a complete stop at the stop sign.
For at one instance, Alpha could have been driving at some velocity, but at another Alpha could drive
another velocity. So the question must be asked- how do we account for this change in velocity in our so
far developed kinematics? This is what acceleration defines, that is, the rate at which velocity changes.

So acceleration is logically and mathematically expressed as

∆𝑣
𝑎� =
∆𝑡

this simply means that the acceleration is the rate at which velocity changes. Since the international
units of velocity is meter per second, and acceleration is velocity over time:
𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑
𝑎� =
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑

To further dimensionalize acceleration, meter is a measurement of length and second is a measurement

of time, so it follows that

[𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ]
[𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒]
𝑎� =
[𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒]

[𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ]
𝑎� =
[𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒]2

If the acceleration of an object is simply 1 meter per second squared, then by the definition of
acceleration-
𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟
1
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑
𝑎� =
1 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑

This simply expresses that after every 1 second, the velocity of the object has increased by 1 meter per
second.

36
If the acceleration is now 2 meters per second squared, then it follows similarly that
𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟
2
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑
𝑎� =
1 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑

after every second, the object increases its velocity by 2 meters per second.

To further elaborate the contemplation of acceleration, scientists expanded on the prime concept of
acceleration

∆𝑣
𝑎� =
∆𝑡

∆𝑣 = 𝑎�∆𝑡

Since the ∆𝑣 is simply the change in velocity or 𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖 and let ∆𝑡 simply be now denoted as 𝑡 which
both represent the time elapsed, we form a new equation

𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑓 = 𝑎�𝑡

𝑣𝑓 = 𝑣𝑖 + 𝑎�𝑡

In essence, the actual velocity of object at a latter instant or at a final instant, depends on the velocity of
the object before the acceleration and after some amount of time.

So if a car is travelling 10 meters per second, then hits on the gas pedal which accelerates the car at an
average 5 meters per second squared, what is the velocity of the car after 10 seconds? Since the velocity
before the acceleration (the initial velocity) is 10 meters per second, and the car accelerates an average
of 5 meters per second squared for 10 seconds, the final velocity can be deduced from our derived
equation.

𝑣𝑓 = 𝑣𝑖 + 𝑎�𝑡

𝑣𝑓 = 10 + 5(10)

𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠
𝑣𝑓 = 60
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑

So the velocity of the car after it accelerates is 60 meters a second.

As from before in the position vs time graph, the slope told us the velocity, and likewise, in a velocity vs
∆𝑓(𝑥)
time graph- the slope tells us acceleration. Since slope of any arbitrary function 𝑓(𝑥) is simply ,
∆𝑥

∆𝑣
If 𝑓(𝑥) represents velocity and 𝑥 represents time, then the slope of this particular function is which
∆𝑡
the exact definition of acceleration as mentioned before is.

37
Notice that the change in velocity over the time elapsed is the slope of the velocity vs time graph and is
therefore the average acceleration over that time interval.

Yet, also as investigated before, the acceleration is not necessarily the same at every instant. In this case
of this graph, observe that the average rate of change of velocity is a linear approximation over some
time interval. Yet if I want to capture the instantaneous acceleration or the change of velocity at an
instant, then the time interval of an instant approaches 0. So the instantaneous acceleration is an
instantaneous change in acceleration which is (with similar reasoning as instantaneous velocity):
∆𝑣
𝑎⃗ = lim
∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡

If, in the previous graph, we want to find the instantaneous velocity at time t_i, then we must find the
slope at the instant t_i. And in order to find the slope at the instant t_i, we must lessen the time interval
until, eventually, t_f approaches t_i. So if we lessen the time interval somewhat, then

The slope of this lesser interval is still just the average acceleration over an interval. So if we want to find
the acceleration at the instant of t_i, then we must lessen the interval to 0, so the slope is the
acceleration at an instant. Further lessening the time interval:

38
But notice that the interval does not yet approach 0, there is still some delay so no longer are finding
acceleration at an instant, but rather the average acceleration over this small time interval. So if we
literally let the time interval go to 0, then we find:

Then notice that the acceleration at an instant is simply the slope of a velocity vs time graph at an
instant. This proves the correlation between velocity and instantaneous acceleration which is how
scientists have derived and how we understand instantaneous acceleration-
∆𝑣
𝑎⃗ = lim
∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡

𝑑𝑣
𝑎⃗ =
𝑑𝑡

So we find the acceleration at an instant when the time interval approaches 0, because an instant has 0
time interval, and then we can find the instantaneous change in velocity over an instantaneous change

39
in time which will give us the instantaneous acceleration.

Though there is apparent relationship between acceleration and velocity (by definition acceleration is
the rate at which velocity changes over time), and there is also apparent relationship between velocity
and displacement (by definition velocity is the rate at which displacement changes over time), the
question arises: what is the relationship between acceleration and displacement? If there is acceleration
acting on a body, then we know that the body changes its velocity. If the body changes velocity, then we
know the object has changed its position. Yet how can scientists calculate and logically derive the
amount of displacement based off acceleration? What is the relationship between acceleration and
displacement? In order to make physics much easier, scientists presumably assumed that acceleration is
a constant. If velocity is a constant, then it would be easy to calculate displacement over certain time
interval, so scientists used constant acceleration to find the displacement over a certain time interval. To
understand its mathematical and theoretical relationship, let us first start with constant velocity. If
velocity remains a constant that acts on some object, then the velocity does not change over time, it is a
constant. So a respective velocity vs time graph would be shown as follows:

Since velocity is some constant v we know that the average velocity is just this constant v.

∆𝑥
𝑣̅ =
∆𝑡

since the average velocity is just the velocity (since velocity is constant in whit case),

∆𝑥
𝑣=
∆𝑡

𝑣∆𝑡 = ∆𝑥

Notice that if velocity is a constant, the change in position is simply:

(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡)∆𝑡 = ∆𝑥

𝑥𝑓 = (𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡)∆𝑡 + 𝑥𝑖

40
If we substitute constant for v and we let ∆𝑡 be t

𝑥𝑓 = (𝑣)𝑡 + 𝑥𝑖

So the displacement changes based from time interval so the displacement can be rewritten as a
function of time:

𝑥(𝑡) = (𝑣)𝑡 + 𝑥𝑖

where the 𝑥(𝑡) simply means the final position as a function of time (this does not mean x multiplied by
t). However notice the beauty of this formed equation- since velocity is a constant and 𝑥𝑖 is also some
constant, we can consider this equation as:

𝑦 = 𝑚𝑥 + 𝑏

which is an equation of a line.

Since 𝑦 represents the final position with respect to a certain amount of time (or a position to time
graph), and 𝑚 is a constant which is the slope of the graph (as velocity is the slope of a position vs time
graph) and b is just some y-intercept, which is just the initial position of the object. Basically, if the
velocity is a constant, then the rate at which the position changes is linear. So in a position vs time
graph, if velocity is a constant, than the slope is a constant which means this graphs out to be some line.

and notice that when the time is 0, or when this graph crosses the y-axis means the initial position of the
object. Also note that the definition of displacement is simply the cage in position- so in this case if one
wanted to calculate the change in position in this case:

∆𝑥
𝑣̅ =
∆𝑡

∆𝑥 = 𝑣̅ ∆𝑡

41
However, let ∆𝑡 be replaced by t as they both simply mean the time elapsed. Also, since velocity is a
constant, the average velocity does not change; in other words, the average velocity is that constant
velocity v. So substituting these concepts in, we find that the displacement of an object if velocity is a
constant is
∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑡

Though this is just the restatement and re-analysis of the past- as we have probed into the matter of
velocities' relationship to displacement, this helps us deduce acceleration's relationship to displacement.
If acceleration, rather than velocity, is a constant than what might the displacement be? Let us begin
with the definition of acceleration:

∆𝑣
𝑎� =
∆𝑡

∆𝑣 = 𝑎�∆𝑡

But since the acceleration is a constant, the average acceleration is that same constant so let us call that
acceleration a. Also let us rewrite the ∆𝑡 as just t because the ∆ signs are rather messy in our logic
process- t and ∆𝑡 both represent the variables of the time elapsed.

∆𝑣 = 𝑎𝑡

The ∆𝑣 means change in velocity which is logically the final velocity minus the initial velocity as this
mathematically tells us how much the velocity has changed (hence, change in velocity).

𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖 = 𝑎𝑡

𝑣𝑓 = 𝑎𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖

Furthermore, since a is just a constant, we can rewrite this equation with this equivalence-

𝑣𝑓 = (𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡)𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖

To even fully demonstrate, let us take create a function of velocity to time as the final velocity changes
as the time interval changes.

𝑣(𝑡) = (𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡)𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖

where the v(t) refers to the velocity as a function of time. If we were to substitute the constant
acceleration as m and 𝑣𝑖 as b (since 𝑣𝑖 is a constant that does not change as time changes), we get the
form:

𝑣(𝑡) = 𝑚(𝑡) + 𝑏

This is the equation of a line, as the slope is a constant- so if we graph a velocity to time graph, if
acceleration is a constant, the slope of the velocity vs time graph is a constant which means that the
graph is linearly shaped.

42
 𝑣(𝑡) = 𝑎(𝑡) + 𝑣𝑖

Since there is some constant acceleration, the velocity changes at a constant rate. But then how can we
measure the displacement since the velocity changes at a constant rate because of the acceleration?
Only when velocity remains a constant, does displacement change at a constant rate, but when velocity
changes at a constant rate how much the object does displace? So let us consider this thought
experiment: assume there is an object - a box- stranded alone in space. However this box is moving at a
constant positive velocity which means that the box is moving at a constant speed to the right. Then if
some observer were to capture instances of the box while it moves at fixed constant time intervals, then
let us visualize how these instances, overlapped, might look. In other words, let this box be moving at a
constant velocity (to the right) and let us take pictures of the box after a certain constant time interval.
Since the box has velocity, it has obviously changed its position- that is, the box has displaced. And if we
wait a certain constant amount of time to record the objects position, in which the box has a constant
velocity, the object displaces a constant interval.

So if object at some instant 1, were to have some constant velocity, then after some amount of time ∆𝑡
the object moved its position. We then record this position after that ∆𝑡 amount of time which we will
call instant 2. Then after another of that same amount of ∆𝑡 time, the object changed its position the
same as it did before because it is travelling at a constant velocity and we will call this instant 3. ∆𝑡 Time
after instant 3 is what we will define instant 4 and the object has traveled the same distance as between
all the other intervals because the object is travelling at an instant velocity for a constant time. So if we
were it take this box at instant 1 and then take a picture, we get just the box at instant 1. If we then take
a picture at instant 2, ∆𝑡 interval after instant 1, we see the box has moved by some distance. If we take
the picture at instant 3 se see that box has traversed that same amount of distance and so on and so
forth all because the velocity is a constant. If now in the another experiment we want to take these
"pictures" and frames of instances for the object's position if the object is traveling at constant
acceleration -

At instant 1, let us say the objet has an initial velocity of zero but has some positive constant
acceleration *which means that the object gains velocity as time passes by). So then after some ∆𝑡 time,
called instant 2, the object has traveled some distance because of the acceleration. But because the

43
velocity keeps increasing every moment of time or every instantaneous frame, the object covers more
and more distance. From instant 2 to 3 (which is still the same ∆𝑡 time interval), the object now does not
have an initial velocity of zero. Since the object has gained velocity from instant 1 to instant 2, the initial
velocity at instant 2 to instant 3 is the same velocity as instant 2. So now the object has some initial
velocity and has content acceleration so at every point in time the object increase its velocity at some
constant rate which means the object travels faster and faster. So even after the same amount of time
∆𝑡, the object converse a greater distance from instant 2 to 3 then instant 1 to 2 simple because the
velocity is much higher. However from instant 3 to 4 the object covers even more distance since the
velocity is even greater than those before (since this positive constant acceleration causes the velocity
to increase at a constant rate). Finally, from instant 4 to 5, the object traverses the most distance then
the other former instances since the velocities are even higher. Though acceleration is a constant, the
velocity is not as by definition of acceleration, the velocity must change. Since in this case the velocity is
increasing and increasing, the object travels a greater and greater distances. Though it is apparent and
only seemingly logical that under constant acceleration, an object must cover more and more distance,
the inquiry is made on what exact value is this displacement under constant acceleration? So this
relationship must be sought by us learners in order to understand the everlasting quest of truth.

If acceleration is a constant value, then in acceleration versus time graph:

Since it is a constant, acceleration remains the same after any amount of time. As derived before, if
acceleration is a non-zero constant, then the velocity versus time graph must be linear which
mathematically can be expressed as
𝑣 = 𝑎(𝑡) + 𝑣𝑖

Then since a is some constant acceleration, the velocity to time graph becomes a line with a constant
slope (or constant acceleration).

44
To further demonstrate, since acceleration is the rate at which velocity changes and hence the slope of
velocity versus time graph is acceleration, this velocity changes at a constant rate and hence the slope is
a constant which defines the velocity versus time graph to be a line. Basically, at every latter instant the
velocity increases and the object travels faster and faster all since the acceleration causes the velocity to
increase. Note that the definition of average velocity is

∆𝑥
𝑣̅ =
∆𝑡

But with constant acceleration the velocity is changing at a constant rate so then the average velocity is
not the actual velocity at an instant. Remember that velocity is constantly increasing in this case when
acceleration is constant positive. So the average velocity is not necessarily the velocity at any instant
because the velocity keeps on increasing, in this case. But because velocity is linear and has a constant
rate of change or constant acceleration, the velocity keeps on changing yet what is the average velocity?

45
Since velocity is changing at a CONSTANT rate, then the average velocity follows to be right in the
middle of the initial velocity and the final velocity. In other words, the average of the velocities initially
and finally is the average velocity throughout this interval of time.

∆𝑥 = 𝑣̅ ∆𝑡

And since, as we have just shown, the average velocity is the average of the initial and final velocity,

𝑣𝑖 + 𝑣𝑓
𝑣̅ =
2
𝑣𝑖 + 𝑣𝑓
∆𝑥 = � � (∆𝑡)
2

But remember from before that if acceleration is a constant, then the average acceleration is the
constant acceleration because acceleration is not changing over time.

∆𝑣
𝑎� =
∆𝑡

Substituting in average acceleration for the constant acceleration

∆𝑣
𝑎=
∆𝑡

𝑎∆𝑡 = ∆𝑣

𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖 = 𝑎∆𝑡

𝑣𝑓 = 𝑎∆𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖

So substituting this form of final velocity back into the former equation

46
 𝑣𝑖 + (𝑎∆𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖 )
∆𝑥 = � � (∆𝑡)
2

Distributing ∆𝑡 yields:

(∆𝑡)𝑣𝑖 + (∆𝑡)(𝑎∆𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖 )
∆𝑥 =
2

Further distributing ∆𝑡 yields:

𝑣𝑖 ∆𝑡 + 𝑎∆𝑡 2 + 𝑣𝑖 ∆𝑡
∆𝑥 =
2

Combining the 𝑣𝑖 ∆𝑡 gives

2𝑣𝑖 ∆𝑡 + 𝑎∆𝑡 2
∆𝑥 =
2

Separating the division to form two separate fractions

2𝑣𝑖 ∆𝑡 𝑎∆𝑡 2
∆𝑥 = +
2 2

And simplifying leads to the conclusive result that

1
∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑖 ∆𝑡 + 𝑎∆𝑡 2
2

But in order to make this equation simpler, symbolically at least, let us call ∆𝑡 to be t as they both
assimilate the meaning of time interval-

1
∆𝑥 = 𝑐𝑡 + 𝑎𝑡 2
2
1
𝑥𝑓 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑎𝑡 2 − 𝑥𝑖
2

As derived, this equation means that if acceleration is a constant applied over an interval t time, then
the displacement of the object over the t time interval is the former equation (and expanding
displacement to change in position yields the latter equation). Furthermore, since acceleration is a
constant for this equation to be true, and the initial velocity is also a constant, the only variable that
changes the final position is the time the acceleration is applied. So the position is a function of time;
that is, position changes as time changes. And also note the degree of this function is 2 so this is a
squared function which means if I were to graph a position to time graph if acceleration were a
constant, it would be parabolic.

If acceleration is a constant, as we have contemplated before:

47
Then velocity is (as we have also discussed before):

Which now makes displacement to be:

48
Essentially, if acceleration is a constant, then the position vs time graph is parabolic.

The equation simply means that if an object has an initial velocity of 𝑣𝑖 and then undergoes constant
acceleration a over a certain time interval t, the object displaces over that t time interval-
1
∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑎𝑡 2
2

Therefore, under constant aeration we can relate displacement as a function of time and velocity as a
function of time, yet if in the following situation let us try to find the problems with the known
equations. Take in a theoretical experiment that there is an object undergoing a constant known
acceleration, with a measurable initial velocity, for some quantifiable amount of time. As an observer,
we can measure displacement since we know 𝑡, 𝑎 , and 𝑣𝑖 so we can apply them to the former derived
equation. We can also measure the final velocity of the object under these certain circumstances as the
final velocity as a function of time under constant acceleration is as previously derived,

𝑣𝑓 = 𝑎𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖

But now let there be another theoretical experiment in which time is difficult to measure. In other
words picture an object which is strapped on to a bomb and scientists want to calculate the object's
final velocity. Assuming that the bomb provides constant acceleration then we know that the object will
be undergoing constant acceleration upon the detonation of the bomb, and we also say that this
experiment is held in a separately confined, isolated room so the scientists don’t die. Then under this
manner, it would be difficult to determine the final velocity of the object as we need the constant
acceleration, the initial velocity, and the time in which the acceleration acted on the object. Scientists
know the initial velocity of the object as it is in this case 0 (the scientists initially leave the object at rest
strapped on to the bomb), and scientists also know the acceleration (assuming it’s a constant) from
previous experiments with the bomb. But in order to calculate the time interval the scientists must
measure the time interval in which the acceleration is applied; that is, scientists must accurately
quantify the time interval in which the explosion occurred but the explosion occurs extremely fast! So
then the time interval is really small! This makes it difficult to measure the time in which the
acceleration acted on the object and hence difficult to find the final velocity. But what else can scientists
easily measure in this experiment? Well scientists know the displacement in which the box travels,
regardless of the object's velocity, as it traverses the same distance since the explosion pushes it with
some constant acceleration outward to the surface of the confined room. So the scientists, before
detonating the bomb of course, could go in the confined room and measure the distance of the object
to the wall and can assume that right after the explosion, the box has a final position on the surface of
the wall. Furthermore, if the room were spherical and the box were positioned at the center, then
regardless of which specific surface on the wall the object lands (as the explosion pushes the object to
the surface of the sphere), its final position minus initial position, or change in position , (which is in this
case the distance from the initial position of the box-which is the center- to the final position- which is
the surface of the sphere) is just the radius. Now that the displacement of the object is known, by the
hypothetical reasoning above, and that the acceleration is known and the initial velocity is known (in
this case it is 0 as the object is initially placed at rest) , how can scientists logically calculate the final

49
velocity of the object as it hits the surface of the sphere? In general terms, given constant acceleration,
the initial velocity, and the displacement of the object, how can we relate the object's final velocity with
these given quantities? We know velocity as a function of time and displacement as a function of time,
so what we want is simply velocity as a function of displacement. Let’s start with the known- under
constant acceleration, the final velocity of an object is

𝑣𝑓 = 𝑎𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖

and the displacement of the object over the t time interval is

1
∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑎𝑡 2
2

Yet since the t time interval is immeasurable or unknown, then we solve for the time in the former
equation and substitute that value (which is still the time interval) into the latter equation. So solving for
time in velocity as a function of time equation:

𝑣𝑓 = 𝑎𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖

𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖 = 𝑎𝑡

𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖
𝑡=
𝑎

Now that we know that time can be expressed in terms of the initial velocity, final velocity, and constant
acceleration, we can substitute this value for time in the displacement as a function of time equation:

1
∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑎𝑡 2
2
𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖 1 𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑖 � �+ 𝑎� �
𝑎 2 𝑎

𝑣𝑖 (𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖 ) 𝑎(𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖 )2
∆𝑥 = +
𝑎 2𝑎2

𝑣𝑖 (𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖 ) 𝑎(𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖 )2
∆𝑥 = +
𝑎 2𝑎2

𝑣𝑖 (𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖 ) (𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖 )2
∆𝑥 = +
𝑎 2𝑎

Multiplying the whole expression by a factor 2𝑎, we can form an equation which is easier to manipulate:

2𝑎∆𝑥 = 2𝑣𝑖 (𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖 ) + (𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖 )2

2𝑎∆𝑥 = (2𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑓 − 2𝑣𝑖 2 ) + (𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖 )2

2𝑎∆𝑥 = �2𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑓 − 2𝑣𝑖 2 � + �𝑣𝑓 2 − 2𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑓 + 𝑣𝑖 2 �

50
Rearranging the sum on the right side of the equation, we can further simplify as

2𝑎∆𝑥 = 2𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑓 − 2𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑓 + 𝑣𝑓 2 − 2𝑣𝑖 2 + 𝑣𝑖 2

This elegantly cancels out as 2𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑓 − 2𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑓 is 0 and −2𝑣𝑖 2 + 𝑣𝑖 2 is −𝑣𝑖 2 so this simplified expression:

2𝑎∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑓 2 − 𝑣𝑖 2

Remember that our original goal is finding the final velocity, so by adding 𝑣𝑖 2 to entire expressions:

𝑣𝑓 2 = 2𝑎∆𝑥 + 𝑣𝑖 2

𝑣𝑓 = �𝑣𝑖 2 + 2𝑎∆𝑥

This derived formula expresses velocity as a function of displacement given that acceleration is constant.
So in our theoretical experiment, the scientists would simply plug in this known data of the initial
velocity (which was 0 as the object was at rest), the constant acceleration caused by the bomb, and the
displacement which the object travels (which was simply the radius as the room was made spherical, or
so we say). In general terms, if the initial velocity is measurable, the constant acceleration is known, and
the displacement that the object covers is given, then the final velocity of the object can be calculated as

𝑣𝑓 = �𝑣𝑖 2 + 2𝑎∆𝑥

Oh no! The object's final velocity, which we now have calculated, is traveling too fast due to the
explosion. It travels so fast that it penetrates through the spherical room causing the explosion to leak
outside of the room and all the scientists die- except us ("Terrorists Wins" - Counter Strike).

If an object travels at a known constant acceleration and the time interval for which the acceleration
applied is measurable and the initial velocity is given, then the final velocity of the object can be
calculated as

𝑣𝑓 = 𝑎𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖

If an object travels at a measurable initial velocity under a known constant acceleration for a certain
given time interval, then the displacement of the object can be calculated as

1
∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑎𝑡 2
2

Collectively, these derived equations which deal with the kinematics of an object (the equations which
abstractly describe the object's movement under constant acceleration) are known as the kinematic
equations.

Using these theoretically derived abstract equations, scientists can better explain the common
phenomena of the term "free fall". But before probing into the specifics, let us create definitions of free
fall. Take this thought experiment to be as follows: you are the great thinker solving all of truth's

51
questions, yet it came to notice that when you throw an object up, it falls down. Accurately, you
conclude that when you throw on object, the velocity of that object must change in order for the object
to come back down, that is, there must exist an acceleration which causes the object's velocity to
change. As observational data have shown, when we throw an object at some velocity, that velocity
changes since the object slows down and then comes down toward us; therefore, there must exist some
acceleration which cases this change in velocity and we decide to call that the acceleration of gravity or
gravitational acceleration. However, whole outside you see an airplane and a man jumps out of the
plane. With your super vision and able to telepathically measure velocities, you see that the person's
velocity as he descends to the Earth increases and increases so there is some acceleration but, all of a
sudden, the man presses a little button and out shoots a parachute. You then notice that the velocity of
the man changes drastically in that the man completely slowed down. You think about this and reason
that since the velocity just lessened, there must be an acceleration which slows the man down a d you
decide to call this phenomena "drag" as there is something countering the acceleration of gravity. In
general, you (as scientists) like dealing with easier quantities, and drag only complicates things so you
decide to define free fall acceleration as the frame where an object "freely falls" or falls with only
gravitational acceleration as the acceleration, which means that there is no drag in this system (we will
revisit these ideas more conceptually and technically later, so please do not let curiosity disturb the
focus). Well without drag, how might things actually fall? If we take a vacuum (an environment in which
no drag is ever present) and drop a feather and a stone at the same time and height, which one would
land on Earth first? Upon asking you this question, you think to yourself and remember that experience
when you went to the terrace of Empire State Building and dropped the feather and the stone at the
same time. You recall that the stone, obviously, hit the ground first while the feather softly floated to
the ground and landed several moments later. Therefore, you proudly say that in the vacuum
environment, the stone would fall first. But I must caution you because the reason why the feather falls
last and the stone falls first in your observation is that of the presence of drag. It changed the velocity of
the feather by lessening its speed, and so the feather slowly fell to the ground (as was the case with man
and his parachute). The stone on the other hand fell faster than the feather due to minimal drag or
lesser drag then the feather and thereby the stone lessens its velocity but not as much as the feather.
Hence the objects both do not fall at the same simply because of drag, so in an environment where drag
is not present (as in a vacuum), then if I drop a stone and a feather from the same height and time, they
must both fall at the ground at the same time because they both have the same gravitational
acceleration. Furthermore, what if I ask you to perform this same experiment in a vacuum on Earth,
except instead of dropping a feather and a stone, I ask you to drop two objects with clearly different
masses such as a metallic baseball and a hollowed tennis ball? Basically, if you drop a massive object and
a small mass object from the same height and the same time (in a vacuum on Earth), which object will
land first? You might be inclined to say the heavier object, because only intuitively the heavier object
must fall first, but if I ask you why you think so, what might you say? For observations have shown that
gravitational acceleration is independent of the falling object's mass; in other words, the gravitational
acceleration of both objects, the object with more mass and the object with less mass, is the same (we
will discuss why this is later, but for now let us assume that this statement is an empirical induction or
observation). So with this thought experiment, we can conclude that gravitational acceleration is the
same for all objects regardless of mass (for now), and objects in free fall have this gravitational

52
acceleration acting on them and the object also has zero or negligible drag. So if I throw a ball in the air
and note it to be a ball in free fall motion, then that means that the ball has negligible drag so the only
acceleration acting on the object is the gravitational acceleration. Yet the constant subtle ambiguity
must remain to the reader regarding gravitational acceleration. What is the gravitational acceleration
and what does it mean? For now, let us define gravitational acceleration to be the acceleration on an
object caused by the object falling, or more specifically, gravity (we will revisit this question in the time
to come, but for now let us focus on manipulating these observations rather than deducing the
observation). However, in our theoretically developed formulas, acceleration was required to be a
constant, yet we do not know (for know) if the gravitational acceleration is constant and if it is we do
not know the value of this constant acceleration. Since we have developed these elegant kinematic
equations to, for instant, solve for displacement of an object, it would seem practical to apply this
concept for when objects fall down from a building, for instance, as the gravitational acceleration would
represent the acceleration that the object experiences while it is falling and then we can calculate the
displacement of the object as it fell to the floor given the time it took the object to fall. We can also
calculate the velocity of the object right before it hit the floor and much more with our simple kinematic
equations. But in order for us to apply these concepts, we must first approximate and measure a
constant or average gravitational acceleration. Let us denote this supposed constant or average
gravitational acceleration (which is just an approximation) to be g, then the Test for g begins!

Since under constant acceleration,

1
∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑎𝑡 2
2

we want to discover what the approximation of an average gravitational acceleration, denoted g might
be.

1
∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑔𝑡 2
2

Now consider this experimental method in order to estimate the gravitational constant acceleration: let
there be an observer which can record the time elapsed at an accurate measure such as a stop-watch.
Then let there be another observer who drops an object from a certain elevated height, in a vacuum.
Then one of the observers can measure the height of elevation or the height from which the object will
drop. It is reasonable that once the drop falls, it covers some distance, and this distance is by common
sense, the initial height from the ground to the object. Furthermore, the observer with the stop-watch
can accurately measure a time0interval, so if the other observer dropped the object from the known
height, then this observer can start the stop watch as soon as the ball starts to fall, and end the timing as
soon as the ball this the ground. So now this observer has an accurately measured time interval of which
the object takes to fall from some known height, to the ground.

53
Notice that the height h of where the object is dropped from is the same height that the object travels.
And also notice that it takes t time interval for the object to travel that height, so the time is measured
and the height is known. Yet even further, we know that the displacement of the object is the final
position minus the initial position-

∆𝑥 = 𝑥𝑓 − 𝑥𝑖

54
So notice that the final position is when the object hits the ground, and the initial position is right before
the object is released. Then if we define our reference line to be as shown, then since 𝑥𝑓 is h units down
from position 𝑥𝑖 , the position 𝑥𝑓 is:

𝑥𝑓 = 𝑥𝑖 − ℎ

Then the displacement is

∆𝑥 = (𝑥𝑖 − ℎ) − 𝑥𝑖

∆𝑥 = −ℎ

The distance the object traveled is h, but the displacement of the object is −ℎ as the object traveled
downward, which is where we define negative to be in this case of our reference line. And since

1
∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑔𝑡 2
2

it follows that

1
−ℎ = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑔𝑡 2
2

We can measure the height h of which the object was dropped and we can measure time t for how long
the object dropped to solve for g - the gravitational acceleration we assume constant. Yet the problem is
that 𝑣𝑖 is also a variable and unknown, but this can easily be solved as 𝑣𝑖 just means the initial velocity of
the object. So if the observer drops the ball or releases the ball, then notice how the initial velocity of
the bass is 0. If the observer threw the ball upward, then the initial velocity would be some positive
number (as we defined on our reference line that up is positive and down is negative in direction) and if
the observer threw the ball downward, the initial velocity would be a negative number. So in order to
eliminate the initial velocity all together, then let the observer drop the object or release it from that
height h so the initial velocity is 0. Then in this case:

1
−ℎ = 𝑔𝑡 2
2

−2ℎ = 𝑔𝑡 2

−2ℎ
𝑔=
𝑡2

So scientist can now quantify this supposed gravitational acceleration by assuming it is a constant and
averaging that constant with a series of procedures. As we have just discovered, let the observer drop
the object from a known height over a measured time. Then the gravitational acceleration can be solved
with this latter equation. So if we do this procedure in reality and test for g in this method, we can
approximate the gravitational acceleration. For example, go on top of a building that is h meters tall and
drop a marble from the height. Then as soon as you release the marble, start the timer on a stopwatch

55
and as soon as you see the object hit the ground, stop the timer. With this data, you can simply
approximate for the gravitational acceleration using the above equation. If this were exercised,
experimental data would reveal that the approximation of a constant gravitational acceleration on Earth
is:
𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠
𝑔 = −9.81
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 2

Where the negative signifies that the gravitational acceleration is directed downward.

So now the correspond kinematics equations are:

1
∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 − 𝑔𝑡 2
2

𝑣𝑓 = 𝑣𝑖 − 𝑔𝑡

𝑣𝑓 = �𝑣𝑖 2 − 2𝑔∆𝑥

where

𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠
𝑔 = +9.81
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 2

So now with our realized gravitational acceleration approximation and our kinematics, we can now
derive other phenomena with gravity. For the universe holds many mysteries and its mysticism can be
the passion o four desire to know and understand truth. So even the "lesser" phenomena are of equal
importance to the truth, and hence even the lesser phenomena are of equal phenomena to us. If I throw
an object upward, from the surface of the Earth, at a certain initial velocity, then how might the velocity
be when the object falls back down at that same position? Essentially, take a ball (while standing on
Earth) and throw it directly upward at some initial velocity denoted 𝑣𝑖 :

56
Because the ball is thrown upward with a velocity which means the object is changing position over a
time interval, it would be nice to have some reference line by which we, as an observer, can refer the
position of the object to- so I let the position of the object, as it is thrown upward, be x. Also I say that
anything above this position x is positive and anything below the position x is negative; since the object
is thrown upward which is where I define positive [+] to be then the initial velocity is positive. But now
we know that there is acceleration caused by gravity which is pulling the ball at the magnitude of
𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠
acceleration of g (which equals 9.81 ), and since this acceleration is toward the Earth which is
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 2
downward, the acceleration is downward. And since acceleration is downward, the acceleration is
negative [-] because anything downward on this arbitrary reference line is negative. Furthermore, we
know that the object will go up, because it was thrown upward at some initial velocity, and then the
object will slowly go up to a maximum height. Note that at that instant where the ball reaches its
maximum height is when the instantaneous velocity is 0 because the ball changes the direction of speed
or from positive velocity becomes negative velocity. In other words, the maximum is height is where the
ball no longer starts change its position upward, or have a positive velocity, but the ball begins to fall
down which means that the ball is about to be changing its position downward, or negative velocity. So
since the ball must from a positive velocity go to a negative velocity, the velocity of the ball has to pass
through zero. Since the maximum height is where the ball no longer travels at a velocity since it is not
traveling upward nor is it travelling downward, then the ball has an instantaneous velocity of 0 at that
maximum height. Yet even when the ball is at its maximum height and therefore ahs a velocity of 0,
notice that gravity still acts on the ball, so there is still acceleration downward. This causes then the ball
to fall downward or now have a negative velocity. This causes the ball to fall downward, yet let us
analyze what happens as the ball passes through the position x. For since x was the position that the ball
was launched, and then the ball goes up with its velocity lessening and lessening until it finally reaches 0
and the ball reached its maximum height, then the ball starts falling down and down faster and faster
which means the velocity becomes negative and the speed increase. Then the ball once again comes

57
back and passes through that position x at which it was thrown except now, instead of having a positive
velocity or instead of traveling upward, the ball is travelling with a negative velocity, that is, the ball is
travelling downward.

This basically depicts the nature that the ball is first thrown yet as the ball is going up, its slowing down
and slowing down due to gravity; then the ball eventually the ball slows down all the way to the velocity
0, and then the ball begins falling down faster and faster because the acceleration is now in the same
direction as displacement. But let us attempt to find what the final velocity 𝑣𝑓 is from this picture; that
is, let us attempt to find the final velocity as the object again passes through the "launch height" or the
object's position where it was initially launched- in this case position x. From our derived kinematics, we
know that
𝑣𝑓 = 𝑣𝑖 − 𝑔𝑡

𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠
where 𝑔 = +9.81 and t represents the time elapsed. Yet in order to solve for the final
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 2
velocity𝑣𝑓 , we must know the time interval t. Remember thought that t represents the time it takes for
the ball to once again pass through the position it was launched or at position x as that is the time
interval for which we want to find the final velocity 𝑣𝑓 . Then in order to solve for t with this definition of
the definition for this particular t, we must go to r previously derived kinematics equation:

1
∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 − 𝑔𝑡 2
2

where ∆𝑥 means change in position. We can expand this concept as ∆𝑥 = 𝑥𝑓 − 𝑥𝑖 to form

1
𝑥𝑓 − 𝑥𝑖 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 − 𝑔𝑡 2
2

58
Yet what are the final and initial positions? Since we threw the ball at some initial velocity𝑣𝑖 , the initial
position is then x.

𝑥𝑖 = 𝑥

Yet since the final position is when the ball passes through the launch position or position x (as we want
to find the time interval t for how long the object was free falling until it passed through the starting
point), the final position is also x.

𝑥𝑓 = 𝑥

So then the displacement is actually

∆𝑥 = 𝑥𝑓 − 𝑥𝑖

∆𝑥 = 𝑥 − 𝑥

∆𝑥 = 0

Yet since the displacement can be related to the acceleration-

1
∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 − 𝑔𝑡 2
2
1
0 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 − 𝑔𝑡 2
2

Solving for time interval t because we want to find the t for how long the ball takes to go up and fall
down back to the launch point.

1
𝑡 �𝑣𝑖 − 𝑔𝑡� = 0
2
1
�𝑣𝑖 − 𝑔𝑡� = 0
2
1
− 𝑔𝑡 = −𝑣𝑖
2

𝑔𝑡 = 2𝑣𝑖

2𝑣𝑖
𝑡=
𝑔
𝑣𝑖
In other words, the time interval 𝑡 = 𝑔
tells us how long the ball Is traveling before it drops back down
to the initial launch position. Now that we have solved for this time, we can measure the final velocity
𝑣𝑓 which tells us the velocity of the ball as it drops to the initial launch position.

𝑣𝑓 = 𝑣𝑖 − 𝑔𝑡

59
 2𝑣𝑖
𝑣𝑓 = 𝑣𝑖 − 𝑔 � �
𝑔

𝑣𝑓 = 𝑣𝑖 − 2𝑣𝑖

𝑣𝑓 = −𝑣𝑖

This means that the final velocity of the ball as it passes through the initial launch height is the same as
its initial velocity, except opposite in direction. So then the ball going up and dropping down might look
like this

In another conceptual example, imagine you are standing on Earth and throw an apple (from your
hands) with a certain velocity (v). Then by what we have deduced, as the apple goes up and falls back
down to the height from which you've thrown it (your hands), the apple has the same velocity by which
you have thrown it, except its falling downward, not upward, so it has the velocity (-v). In application of
this concept, if you, while standing on Earth, were to shoot a bullet directly upward toward the sky (with
the assumption as mentioned long before that there is no drag), then you know that the bullet leaves
the barrel of the gun at some high velocity v.

60
Then as the bullet travels up away from Earth, gravity pulls the bullet back down so the bullet travels up
slower and slower until finally the bullet reaches its peak height, and then the bullet starts to fall down
faster and faster until finally the bullet hits the shooter's head.

Then the bullet hits the shooter's head at the same velocity that the bullet shot out at ("Headshot" -
Combat arms). In other words, the velocity of the bullet once it shoots out of the gun, is the same
velocity of the bullet, but in the opposite direction, as it falls down to the original firing position. So if I
shoot a bullet, directly pointed to the sky, at a velocity of 1200 meters per second (that's fast!), then the
velocity of the bullet as it falls back to the gun from the position at which it was originally fired, is also
1200 meter per second (that's painful!). This is the conceptual reasoning for why not to shoot with a gun
pointed directly upward- for physics does bite you back, with same vigor you bit it!

Yet we can further this physics, with mathematical manipulation of kinematics and free falling objects,
to deduce what the maximum height that an object projected upward can reach. We know that the
displacement of an object under gravity is given by:

1
∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 − 𝑔𝑡 2
2

which we can rewrite in the form as

1
∆𝑥 = − 𝑔𝑡 2 + 𝑣𝑖 𝑡
2

And I want to find what the maximum height the object travels might be. If I launch the object upward
with some initial velocity, I know that the object goes up, but because gravity is pulling the object
downward or accelerating the object downward, the object slowly comes to a halt and then falls toward
the ground. So I want to find that maximum height of the object which is also the maximum
displacement. So I want to rewrite the displacement in a form of which I can solve for the maximum
height.

1 2𝑣𝑖 𝑡
∆𝑥 = − 𝑔 �𝑡 2 − �
2 𝑔

Yet it would be nice IF ∆𝑥 were equal to

61
 1 2𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 → − 𝑔 �𝑡 2 − 𝑡 + 2�
2 𝑔 𝑔

because this becomes:

1 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 → − 𝑔 �𝑡 − �
2 𝑔

Yet notice, that ∆𝑥 cannot equal this equation-

1 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 ≠ − 𝑔 �𝑡 − �
2 𝑔

1 2𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 ≠ − 𝑔 �𝑡 2 − 𝑡 + 2�
2 𝑔 𝑔

1 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 ≠ − 𝑔𝑡 2 + 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 −
2 2𝑔

And this above expression cannot be true because we already know what displacement equals:

1
∆𝑥 = − 𝑔𝑡 2 + 𝑣𝑖 𝑡
2
𝑖 𝑣2 𝑖 𝑣2
So in order to make former equation true, we simply add by 2𝑔 as it cancels out the other − 2𝑔 :

1 𝑣𝑖 2 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − 𝑔𝑡 2 + 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 − +
2 2𝑔 2𝑔

𝑣2 𝑣2 1
𝑖
Notice the − 2𝑔 𝑖
+ 2𝑔 just cancels out and then we get ∆𝑥 = − 𝑔𝑡 2 + 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 which is true. So by again
2
manipulating this new expression of ∆𝑥 as we have before:

1 2 𝑣𝑖 2 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = �− 𝑔𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 − �+
2 2𝑔 2𝑔

1 2𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑖 2 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − 𝑔 �𝑡 2 − 𝑡 + 2� +
2 𝑔 𝑔 2𝑔

1 𝑣𝑖 2 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − 𝑔 �𝑡 − � +
2 𝑔 2𝑔

This form of displacement is significant and relevant as it can reveal to us multiple things. First, with this
expression of displacement, let us reason what the maximum height is. We know that as the time t
changes, the displacement ∆𝑥 changes. Yet there is some time t in which the displacement ∆𝑥 is its
greatest. And when the displacement is at its greatest, the maximum height is reached. So in order to

62
quantify the maximum height that the object reaches, it must be when the displacement is at its
greatest. Yet what is the greatest possible value of displacement ∆𝑥 with this new equation?

Now here lies the thinking: we want to find the greatest possible value for displacement ∆𝑥 because it
tells us the greatest height reached by an object. We also know that the height changes as a function of
time, that is the displacement ∆𝑥 changes as time varies (hence, time is the "variable"). For all values,
the time t could be the following:
𝑣𝑖
𝑡>
𝑔
𝑣𝑖
𝑡<
𝑔
𝑣𝑖
𝑡=
𝑔
𝑣 𝑣 𝑣
So for any random value of time t, it is either greater than 𝑖, less than 𝑖, or equal to 𝑖. If time t is
𝑔 𝑔 𝑔
𝑣𝑖
greater than
𝑔

𝑣𝑖
𝑡>
𝑔

and remember

1 𝑣𝑖 2 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − 𝑔 �𝑡 − � +
2 𝑔 2𝑔

𝑣 𝑣𝑖
Now notice, that since time t is greater than 𝑔𝑖, 𝑡 − 𝑔
is a positive number:

𝑣𝑖
𝑡− = [+]
𝑔

Substituting this back into displacement yields:

1 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − 𝑔([+])2 +
2 2𝑔

A positive number squared is also a positive number, so

([+])2 = [+]

Substituting this back into displacement yields:

1 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − 𝑔[+] +
2 2𝑔

63
 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠
And since 𝑔 is a positive constant of 𝑔 = +9.81 , a positive number multiplied by a positive
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 2
number is also positive. So

𝑔[+] = [+]

Substituting this back into displacement yields:

1 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − [+] +
2 2𝑔

A negative number multiplied by a positive number is a negative number, so

1
− [+] = [−]
2

Substituting this back into displacement yields:

𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = [−] +
2𝑔

which can be re-written as

𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − [𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟]
2𝑔

𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 <
2𝑔

𝑣 𝑣2
Then when the time t is greater than 𝑔𝑖, the displacement ∆𝑥 is less than 2𝑔
𝑖
.

𝑣𝑖
Yet when the time t is greater than 𝑔

𝑣𝑖
𝑡<
𝑔

and remember

1 𝑣𝑖 2 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − 𝑔 �𝑡 − � +
2 𝑔 2𝑔
𝑣 𝑣𝑖
Now notice, that since time t is less than 𝑔𝑖, 𝑡 − 𝑔
is a negative number:

𝑣𝑖
𝑡− = [−]
𝑔

Substituting this back into displacement yields:

64
 1 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − 𝑔([−])2 +
2 2𝑔

A negative number squared is a positive number, so

([−])2 = [+]

Substituting this back into displacement yields:

1 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − 𝑔[+] +
2 2𝑔
𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠
And since 𝑔 is a positive constant of 𝑔 = +9.81 , a positive number multiplied by a positive
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 2
number is also positive. So

𝑔[+] = [+]

Substituting this back into displacement yields:

1 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − [+] +
2 2𝑔

A negative number multiplied by a positive number is a negative number, so

1
− [+] = [−]
2

Substituting this back into displacement yields:

𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = [−] +
2𝑔

which can be re-written as

𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − [𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟]
2𝑔

𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 <
2𝑔

𝑣 𝑣𝑖 2
Then when the time t is less than 𝑖, the displacement ∆𝑥 is less than .
𝑔 2𝑔

𝑣𝑖
Yet when the time t is equal to 𝑔
(which is the last possibility as time t is either greater, lesser, or equal
𝑣 𝑣 𝑣2
to 𝑔𝑖; since we figured out that when time t is greater or lesser than 𝑔𝑖, the displacement is less than 2𝑔
𝑖
.
So let us see what the displacement might be, even as an equality, when the time t is not greater nor
𝑣 𝑣
lesser than 𝑖, but exactly 𝑖)
𝑔 𝑔

65
 𝑣𝑖
𝑡=
𝑔

and remember

1 𝑣𝑖 2 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − 𝑔 �𝑡 − � +
2 𝑔 2𝑔
𝑣𝑖 𝑣
Now notice, that since time t is equal to 𝑔
, 𝑡 − 𝑔𝑖 is zero as they cancel out:

𝑣𝑖
𝑡− =0
𝑔

Substituting this back into displacement yields:

1 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − 𝑔(0)2 +
2 2𝑔

Zero squared is zero, so

(0)2 = 0

Substituting this back into displacement yields:

1 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − 𝑔(0) +
2 2𝑔
𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠
And since 𝑔 is a positive constant of 𝑔 = +9.81 , a positive number multiplied by zero is just
𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 2
zero. So

𝑔(0) = 0

Substituting this back into displacement yields:

1 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = − (0) +
2 2𝑔

A negative number multiplied by zero is zero, so

1
− (0) = 0
2

Substituting this back into displacement yields:

𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = (0) +
2𝑔

which can be re-written as

66
 𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 = +0
2𝑔

𝑣𝑖 2
∆𝑥 =
2𝑔

𝑣 𝑣2
OH, what is this?! When the time t is 𝑔𝑖, the displacement is equal to 2𝑔
𝑖
. Logically, our deduced data can
be represented:

𝑣 𝑣𝑖 2 𝑣 𝑣𝑖 2 𝑣 𝑣𝑖 2
when 𝑡 > 𝑔𝑖, the ∆𝑥 < 2𝑔
. And when 𝑡 < 𝑔𝑖, the ∆𝑥 < 2𝑔
. But when 𝑡 = 𝑔𝑖, the ∆𝑥 = 2𝑔
. WOAH!! So
𝑣2
𝑖
basically, the maximum ∆𝑥 is 2𝑔 as since the ∆𝑥 changes as time changes. So when time t is anything
𝑣 𝑣2 𝑣𝑖
OTHER THAN 𝑔𝑖, the resulting displacement is always less than 2𝑔
𝑖
, yet when time t IS 𝑔
(the only
𝑣2
remaining option left for time t) the displacement is 2𝑔
𝑖
. And since, for any random time t, the maximum
𝑣𝑖 2
displacement will always be 2𝑔
, it follows that the maximum height an object reaches as it is projected
𝑖 𝑣2
directly upward at an arbitrary initial velocity 𝑣𝑖 undergoing free fall, is 2𝑔 . Basically, if I throw a ball
𝑖 𝑣2
upward (with a speed denoted as any 𝑣𝑖 ) while on Earth, the maximum height the ball will reach is 2𝑔 .I
𝑣𝑖
also now know that when I throw this ball, it will take the ball a time t such that 𝑡 = to reach this
𝑔
maximum height. However, we can relate the velocity of an object as a function of time:

𝑣𝑓 = 𝑣𝑖 + 𝑎𝑡

In this case, the acceleration is negative gravitational acceleration -g, so

𝑣𝑓 = 𝑣𝑖 − 𝑔𝑡
𝑣
And the time that passes for the ball, after I threw it upward, to reach its maximum height is time 𝑡 = 𝑖:
𝑔

𝑣𝑖
𝑣𝑓 = 𝑣𝑖 − 𝑔 � �
𝑔

𝑣𝑓 = 𝑣𝑖 − 𝑣𝑖

𝑣𝑓 = 0

Hence, this proves that the final velocity of the object at its peak height, is 0. But to further this modeled
𝑣𝑖
understanding of free-fall: I know that it takes the ball some time 𝑡1 = to travel all the way upward to
𝑔
its max height. Yet the ball also takes some time 𝑡2 to fall back down from its max height, but let us
attempt to quantify time 𝑡2 . First, we know that the ball takes a total time 𝑇 to travel all the up to the
ball's maximum height, and then travel all the way back down to the position it was thrown. Since the
time 𝑡1 is defined to be the time it takes for the ball to reach its maximum height, and time 𝑡2 is defined

67
to be the time it takes for the ball to travel from the maximum height to the initial launch height, the
total time 𝑇 that the object travels free-falling logically becomes

𝑇 = 𝑡1 + 𝑡2
𝑣𝑖
Yet we know that 𝑡1 = 𝑔
because that is the time it takes for the object to reach its maximum height. So

𝑣𝑖
𝑇= + 𝑡2
𝑔

Now we must ask ourselves what is the total time 𝑇- because once we know the total time 𝑇, then we
can figure out the time 𝑡2 ; in other words, once we know the total time it takes for the ball to go up and
down, we can figure out that it takes the ball to go from the top maximum position back to the bottom
original position.

So the ball is tossed upward at some positive or upward initial velocity. Since gravity is pulling the ball
down, it goes up to a maximum height with an instantaneous velocity of zero, and then begins to
descend back down. However notice, once it goes back down to the original launching position, the
final position is the same as the initial position- so the displacement is 0. And since the displacement
under constant acceleration, which is in this case gravity, can be written as:

1
∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 − 𝑔𝑡𝑇 2
2

68
Notice that this time interval tells us for how long the ball was going up and coming down, which is the
time interval we defined 𝑇 to be.

1
0 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 − 𝑔𝑇 2
2
1
𝑇 �𝑣𝑖 − 𝑔𝑇� = 0
2
1
�𝑣𝑖 − 𝑔𝑇� = 0
2
1
− 𝑔𝑇 = −𝑣𝑖
2

𝑔𝑇 = 2𝑣𝑖

2𝑣𝑖
𝑇=
𝑔

This should be familiar as we have done this mathematical manipulation exactly earlier, which reinforces
the concept of the total time 𝑇 it took. So the object went up to its maximum point, and fell back down
2𝑣𝑖
to its starting point under the total time 𝑇 = . However, from earlier, the ball also took a time interval
𝑔
𝑣𝑖
𝑡1 = to reach the maximum height, and we wanted to find the time 𝑡2 as it told su the time the object
𝑔
took to fall down from the max height. Then since

𝑇 = 𝑡1 + 𝑡2

and

2𝑣𝑖
𝑇=
𝑔

and
𝑣𝑖
𝑡1 =
𝑔

It follows that

2𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑖
= + 𝑡2
𝑔 𝑔

solving for 𝑡2 yields:

𝑣𝑖
𝑡2 =
𝑔

69
 𝑣
But notice that since𝑡1 = 𝑔𝑖, if we substitute:

𝑡2 = 𝑡1

Mathematically, all this equation says is that the time 𝑡2 is equal to time 𝑡1 but now let us add meaning
to the math. Recall that time 𝑡1 is the time it takes for the ball to go up and time 𝑡2 is the time is takes
the ball to fall back down. Then since both these time intervals are the same, that means that it takes
the same for the ball to go up to its maximum height, as it does for the ball to down from the maximum
height to its starting position. Hence, generalizing this to any object, if an object is launched at any initial
velocity, the object will then regardless of velocity, the time it takes for the object to reach its maximum
position is the same time it takes for the object to fall back down from the maximum position to the
launching position. So if I throw a tennis ball at a speed of 1 meters per second upward, then that means
1 1
that ball will take seconds to go up to its maximum position and then another seconds to come back
𝑔 𝑔
1 𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑖
down ( I got the seconds from the derivation that 𝑡1 = which makes 𝑡2 = where the initial
𝑔 𝑔 𝑔
velocity is 1 meter per second).

Though these phenomena may seem of "common sense"- that an object launched upward takes half the
time to go up and the other half to come down; an object launched upward at some velocity has the
same velocity when it falls down at that position, except opposite position; and an object reaches a
maximum height based off the initial velocity of the ball when it was launched. Yet these common
senses are rightly so based from observation- for what is "common" is what is observed and what is
"sense" is what is obvious, which makes "common sense" the obvious observations. Yet observations
have their own derivations, their own logic. So we must discover what these logics and reasons might be
to explain these "common sense" phenomena as we must uncover the truth behind all observations,
whether obvious or not. Though, then again, even logic is an observation. As we used the logic of
kinematics to derive such observations- but kinematics is also an observation. But kinematics has its own
logic- as we derived kinematics under contest acceleration. Yet that derivation or logic had, again, its
observation of the definition of acceleration. But accelerations have its own logic of rate at which
velocity changes, yet velocity is the observation. But velocity has its own logic of rate at which
displacement changes but displacement is that observation. Displacement ahs its own logic of change in
position, but the ideal of position is an observation. Hence logic can be regarded as an observation and
the observation can be regarded as logic all up to the base point- to the first assumed observation as
fact. For if gravity never caused us to accelerate, that is- if what we observe is different, then our logic is
different; so we would have a different set of rules, a different set of derivations, and a different set of
logics. So the logic is in itself an observation for the observation. Then we must come to the first
observation and attempt to find its logic, though the first observation cannot have an observable
observation which causes it since that IS the only observation which will base all other observations. In
other words, there has to be one assumed logic which we can then deduce multiple logics. But in an
attempt to understand the truth, forget about the first early questions truth might such as what caused
truth, and forget about the last questions truth may pose such as what is the meaning of truth?, but let
us focus on these middle questions. We know truth exists and we exist as a part of it, so let us discover

70
our "physics" before we go on to the "parallel physics". So signify the base notations and logic of which
this universe and its physics are founded, as means of one single observation. That "common sense" is
then the applied simple logic, of which has no proof but just a truthful observation of which we can
continue discovering and theorizing new observations and logics. As in any case, in order to derive any
argument, assumptions must be made. Those assumptions have also been formerly derived, yet those
derivations had its own assumptions. We can iterate like this again and again to find that the very first
logic was the very first assumption. But instead of focusing on the reasoning of the first observation
(which we will come to) let us first question these phenomena, as we must walk before we can run. So
returning from the "meta", we find ourselves amongst the path of just deriving the common
phenomena pertaining to free fall.

Though this may all seem rather intuitive, the derivation and logic proving such intuitiveness is the truth
of the nature of gravity (for now). But another way to derive these concepts is another view of the same
truth. And since our objective is to seek the truth as a whole, all angles of the lens that sees nothing but
the truth must be formed: so let us analyze another way to reason with these gravitational discoveries.

Another way to examine gravity is the displacement caused by the assumed average gravitational
acceleration.

1
∆𝑥 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 − 𝑔𝑡 2
2

Displacement can be written in the form of position, as displacement is the change in position or

1
𝑥𝑓 − 𝑥𝑖 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 − 𝑔𝑡 2
2
1
𝑥𝑓 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 − 𝑔𝑡 2 + 𝑥𝑖
2

Basically, we can relate the position of the object 𝑥𝑓 , as a function of time t as the position varies as the
time varies. So let us let

𝑓(𝑡) = 𝑥𝑓

where 𝑓(𝑡) represents the position of the object as a function of the time that has passed. Then the
function can also be expressed as

1
𝑓(𝑡) = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 − 𝑔𝑡 2 + 𝑥𝑖
2
1
𝑓(𝑡) = − 𝑔𝑡 2 + 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑥𝑖
2

71
Notice how then that the position with respect to time is parabolic: so graphing this on a position vs
time graph yields us a parabola. Though what may the vertex be and what may the roots be of this
function graphed? Well we know the vertex, is in this case, the maximum point on the graph, and the
maximum m position on the graph is the maximum point on the function, and the maximum point on
the function is when the position of the graph is at its greatest. But we know this is a graph of position
as it varies with time, so for what time is the position the highest? As we have already analyzed before,
the time to reach the maximum is point is when time T:
𝑣𝑖
𝑇=
𝑔

Then since T is the time which gives the maximum position, 𝑓(𝑇) is the highest position. So the
maximum position (as also gone through before) is:

𝑓(𝑇)
𝑣𝑖
= 𝑓� �
𝑔

1 𝑣𝑖 2 𝑣𝑖
= − 𝑔 2 + 𝑣𝑖 + 𝑥𝑖
2 𝑔 𝑔

𝑣𝑖 2 𝑣𝑖 2
=− + + 𝑥𝑖
2𝑔 𝑔

𝑣𝑖 2 2𝑣𝑖 2
=− + + 𝑥𝑖
2𝑔 2𝑔

𝑣𝑖 2
= + 𝑥𝑖
𝑔

So the vertex point on this graph of 𝑓(𝑡) is

𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑖 2
� , + 𝑥𝑖 �
𝑔 𝑔

𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑖 2
After 𝑔
amount of time, the object has reached its maximum position of 𝑔
. So now that we know the
vertex, let us graph this position vs time graph.

72
Because a parabola is symmetrical, wherever the parabola crosses the x-axis on one side of the vertex, is
the same distance away from the vertex to the other side for the other root. In other words, if I know
one root of the parabola, I can figure out the other root- so if I know at what time the position of the
graph is 0, then I can figure out the other time for when the position of the graph is again 0. But as you
see in the graph, I simply let x_i or 𝑥𝑖 be defined as my starting position or 0 because it makes the
graphing and understanding easier. I hold on object and I define that position to be 0, then I launch the
object upward from that same starting position. The object goes up to a max height and drops back
down and this function of time just simply records the position of the object as time passes, so the graph
you see here is just the recorded position as time passes. Since I know when the time is 0 or when no
time has passed, that the object was just in my hand at the initial position which I define to be 0. Then
𝑣
once I launch the object, after time of 𝑖, the object has reached its maximum position. Then because
𝑔
this is parabola and it is symmetrical, the time it takes to go from the starting to the top, is the same
time it takes to from the top back to the starting.

73
 𝑣𝑖
The time it takes to get from the starting launch position, to the maximum position is 𝑔
which makes the
𝑣𝑖
time it takes form the maximum position to get back to the starting launch position to also be as a
𝑔
parabola is symmetrical and the position as It varies with time, graphs a parabola.

74
 𝑣𝑖
Now let us analyze what this means. The object takes 𝑔
time to get to the max height, and takes another
𝑣𝑖 𝑣
𝑔
time to get back to the initial launch height. So the TOTAL time the object was launching is 2 𝑔𝑖 . But
notice, this is the time that takes the object I threw upward at some initial position to go up and BACK to
the INTIAL POSITION. If I throw an object upward directly from the ground, then the time it takes the
𝑣
object to go up and come BACK TO THE GROUND, is 2 𝑖. But say I threw the object above the ground,
𝑔
then the time it takes for the object to up and come back down TO THE POSITION WHERE I THREW IT, is
𝑣 𝑣
2 𝑖. Since I was above the ground the object will continue falling down even after the 2 𝑖 time because
𝑔 𝑔
after that much time, the object went up and came back down to the position where it was launched.
Since the position where it was launched is above the ground, it will take a little more time for the
object to continue to fall to the ground which was underneath the launching height. Basically, we have
derived another way in this new visual manner to reason that the time it take for the object thrown
𝑣𝑖
upward to go up and back down to the launch height is 2 and also that the time it takes for the object
𝑔
to go to its maximum position is the same as it takes to go from the maximum position back to the
starting position. Yet, using this new visual method, let us also re-derive in another manner the velocity
of the object at the peak height. Logically we have reasoned before that the velocity of the object at its
maximum height is obviously zero because the object is not displacing upward or downward for that
instant. Yet how might we articulate this very concept mathematically?

Since the position as a function of time

1
𝑓(𝑡) = − 𝑔𝑡 2 + 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑥𝑖
2

Differentiating this function with respect to time is simply

𝑑𝑓(𝑡)
= −𝑔𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖
𝑑𝑡

But beyond mathematical terms, this means how the position of the graph instantaneously changes
over an instant of time! Hence, the derivative of this is simply instantaneous velocity as it tells how the
position of the object changes over an instant.

𝑓 ′ (𝑡) = −𝑔𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖

𝑣(𝑡) = −𝑔𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖

This tells us how the velocity changes over time (aka velocity as a function of time).
𝑣𝑖
We know the time it takes for the thrown object to reach its maximum m height, that is, it takes 𝑔
time
for the object to reach its maximum height. So the velocity after that amount of time is the velocity AT
the MAXIMUM HEIGHT. In other terms, since

𝑣𝑖
𝑓 � � = 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝑔

75
then

𝑣𝑖
𝑣 � � = 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑐𝑜𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝑔
𝑣
So, since time t= 𝑔𝑖,

𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑖
𝑣 � � = −𝑔 � � + 𝑣𝑖
𝑔 𝑔
𝑣𝑖
𝑣 � � = −𝑣𝑖 + 𝑣𝑖
𝑔
𝑣𝑖
𝑣� � = 0
𝑔

Graphically, since the slope of the position vs time graph is average velocity, the instantaneous slope of
the velocity over time graph is instantaneous velocity. And at the maximum height, the instantaneous
slope is 0. So graphically this can be interpreted:

And since that is the slope at the instant when the object reaches its pack height, which is also the
instantaneous velocity when the object reaches the peak height which is 0.

76
Using this same concept, let us also re-derive the reason that the initial velocity that the object was
launched with is the SAME velocity except opposite3 direction when the object reaches the SAME initial
position.

Visually, we must prove that the velocity at the initial instant when time is 0, should have been the same
𝑣
but OPPOSITE in direction as the velocity at time 2 𝑖. But because that is opposite in direction, the
𝑔
velocity must be the same in magnitude but negative which means opposite in direction. The velocity
when time is 0 is:

𝑣(0) = −𝑔(0) + 𝑣𝑖

𝑣(0) = +𝑣𝑖
𝑣
The velocity when time is 2 𝑔𝑖 is:

𝑣𝑖 𝑣𝑖
𝑣 �2 � = −𝑔 �2 � + 𝑣𝑖
𝑔 𝑔
𝑣𝑖
𝑣 �2 � = −2𝑣𝑖 + 𝑣𝑖
𝑔
𝑣𝑖
𝑣 �2 � = −𝑣𝑖
𝑔

77
 𝑣
This means that the velocity at time 2 𝑔𝑖 is the same as the velocity, except opposite direction, at time 0.
This means the object is launched at an initial speed, but the speed of the object after it goes up and as
it comes back down to the same initial position is the same initial speed. This graphical interpretation
derivation using the same concepts of how we derived it previously, which provides another lens at
which to view the truth. However, we have been looking too specific- we have been placing limitations
on your lens as it can only detect something specific. One dimensional motion or free-fall is very limited
in context of kinematics itself. For can't things move 2-dimensionally? We have only been inclined at the
notion of one-dimensional kinematics, but how might things move round in two dimensions? One-
dimensional motion is an object moving up and down or left and right, so dimensional motion is the
object moving up or down AND left or right. As a car driving on a straight line con only travel one
dimensionally (backward or forward), a coin placed on a paper can move 2 dimensionally on the paper.
For the coin could move left or right AS WELL AS forward and backward. This very concept augments our
current understanding of kinematics- we have only looked through a specific lens but let us open our
eyes to even more truth. So now let us analyze how motion and kinematics can be developed in 2
dimensions.

Consider a thought experiment to be as follows: a boat set on sea travelling to the East at constant
velocity. Magically, we turn into birds and fly over this boat to get a bird's eye view and we see the boat
travelling East, yet we birds are also endowed with the power of reasoning and have reconstructed
physics up to this level. So then we see:

We can see that the brown thingy is the boat travelling at a velocity V and the water is the blue wavy
thingy. Now we also notice that the boat is travelling Eastward, so after some amount of time, the boat
will travel only east. Since there are no other observed velocities, the boat CAN ONLY travel east.

78
As birds that fly over this nice calm ocean every day, we see that the boat always travels eastward. Every
day we see this same boat travelling eastward, and wonder why this boat doesn't traveling any
direction. So one day we fly to the boat driver and ask the Sir why he can't travel in any other direction.
The boatman answers and says that the boat is broken and can ONLY travel to the East. So, everyday,
and every morning, and every time, we see the boat travelling only eastward. Yet for the first time, we
(as birds) have experienced something new, a storm over the sea! On this stormy day, we fly over the
boat and observe that it is NOT TRAVELLING eastward, but instead is travelling south-east.

Deeply, as thinking birds, we are confused: for the Sir said that his boat can ONLY travel east, but here
the boat is travelling southeast. So we come to the initial conclusion that the Sir was lying, and so
confront the Sir to question the motive behind is fraud. So we tell Sir that he lied to us when he said his
boat can only travel east because as we have clearly witnessed, his boat was travelling south-east. The
Sir laughs at our statement as tells us that his boat WAS travelling east, it was just that the WATER was
travelling south. Since the Sir was travelling East on the water and the water was travelling South, the Sir
was travelling south-east to the birds. Since it was a stormy night, the water has its own current and its
own velocity. We as birds can find this statement rather confusing and inadequate so we decide to back
to the ocean during this storm and put a piece of paper over the ocean. Since we place a piece of paper,
it should be at rest as we the birds PLACED the paper over with NO initial velocity. However, we find that
once we place the paper as a test over the water, the current pushes it toward the south. Hence the
water is moving south and the Sir's boat was moving east, so the Sir was actually travelling south-east as
seen by us birds.

Visually, if we as birds were to graphically represent this concept, then the boat in a velocity diagram
might look like the following:

79
The velocity of the boat was INTENDED eastward, but the water current pushed the boat southward.
This caused the boat to move southeast. Hence, the net velocity (or total velocity) of the boat was
Southeast because of these individual velocity "components". These components make up the direction
and magnitude of the net velocity; in other words, these components of velocity make up the actual
resulting speed and the direction of the speed which therefore provide the vector of velocity. Let us
leave our "birdly" manifest and enter the pure realm of thought. This experiment has shown us that
velocities can be broken down into components. The boat traveled southeast because the river moved
the boat south and the boat moved it east, and these individual velocities are what we call component
velocities. If we generalize this concept into a generic reference: if an object travels at a velocity in any
direction, we can break down that velocity into two separate velocities at different directions. For
example, take on object moving at some velocity at some angle with respect to the horizontal:

Then that means that the object has a velocity along the x-axis and a velocity along the y-axis called the
x-component and y-component respectively. Basically, the object is moving in the x-axis WHILE moving
in the y-axis. So the object is moving along the x-axis at some velocity denoted 𝑣𝑥 :

80
And the object is moving along the y-axis denoted 𝑣𝑦 :

So TOGETHER the object is moving along both axes to visually form the vector denoted 𝑣⃗ (the arrow
signifies that the velocity is a vector quantity which means that the velocity has a specific direction):

Visually, this means that velocity in two dimensions can literary be split up into two individual velocities
along one-dimension. Furthermore, the components of 𝑣𝑥 and 𝑣𝑦 are perpendicular to each other
because the x-axis is always perpendicular to the y-axis.

Because these component velocities are perpendicular to each other, notice that this forms a right
triangle in which we can elegantly apply Pythagorean Theorem to form the equation that

𝑣 2 = 𝑣𝑥 2 + 𝑣𝑦 2

𝑣 = �𝑣𝑥 2 + 𝑣𝑦 2

81
This equation tells us the magnitude of velocity or the speed of the object. But velocity is a vector
quantity and has a speed and direction, so we can calculate the speed based on the components of
velocity as we have just shown, but how might we find the direction? In one-dimensional kinematics, we
expressed the direction of velocity with a positive '+' or negative '-' sign. So when the velocity was
positive, the object was moving to the right and when the velocity was negative the object was moving
to the left (or really however you want to define it) but in the case of two-dimensional motion the object
is not necessity moving to the left or right. It's moving left or right AND up or down. So if we attempt to
notate direction with a sign, then let left be negative and right be positive. But the object could also be
moving up so what do we call that? Likewise the object might move down so what do we call that? And
the object can be moving any combination of left, right, up, and down so what might we call all those
infinite individual combinations? Instead, if you can imagine it would considerably easier to denote
everything with angles. For, if you draw a Cartesian Plane, if the angle is 0 degrees, than that denotes
the object can be considered moving to the right; , if the angle is 90 degrees, than that denotes the
object can be considered moving up; if the angle is 180 degrees, than that denotes the object can be
considered moving to the left; if the angle is 270 degrees, than that denotes the object can be
considered moving down; if the angle is 360 degrees, than that denotes the object can be considered
moving to the right;….

For if you draw a line with a certain angle on a Cartesian Plane, then:

The angle between the red line and the horizontal is 0° which we will signify the direction right because
that is where the red line is pointing. The angle between the blue line and the horizontal is 90° which we
will signify as the direction up because that is where the blue line is pointing. The angle between the
green line and the horizontal is 180° which we will signify the direction left because that is where the
green line is pointing. The angle between the yellow line and the horizontal is 270° which we will signify

82
as the direction down because that is where the yellow line is pointing. Finally, The angle between,
again, the red line and the horizontal is 360° which we will signify the direction right because that is
where the red line is pointing. Notice that the angle of 360 degrees IS the angle with 0 degrees, and the
angle measure of 450 degrees IS the angle with 90 degrees and the angle of measure 540 degrees IS the
measure of angle 180 degrees, and so forth. So two dimensional motion can be easily expressed with
angles, because in two-dimensions, the object could move up (90 degrees), down (270 degrees), left
(180 degrees), right (270 degrees), and any direction between (0 through 360 degrees). Then we can
denote the velocity of the object by referring to its speed and then stating its direction as an angle. Yet
with the previous example of the object being posed a velocity at some angle 𝜃:

We can break that velocity into the x-component velocity and y-component velocity to form:

If we were given the values of the x-component of velocity and the y-component of the velocity denoted
as 𝑣𝑥 and 𝑣𝑦 respectively, then how can we calculate that angle 𝜃? Let us consider this
trigonometrically, since this a right triangle, the
𝑜𝑝𝑝
tan(𝜃) =
𝑎𝑑𝑗

By definition, the tangent of an angle is the opposite side of that angle divided by the adjacent side of
that angle. In this case, the opposite side is 𝑣𝑦 and the adjacent side is𝑣𝑥 , so substituting:

𝑣𝑦
tan(𝜃) =
𝑣𝑥
𝑣𝑦
θ = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 � �
𝑣𝑥

So the angle can be measured by taking the inverse tangent (which unbundles the tangent) of the y-
component velocity over the x-component velocity. Overall, if we were given the values of 𝑣𝑥 and𝑣𝑦 , we

83
can calculate that magnitude of velocity or speed of the object and we can also measure the angle of the
speed or direction of velocity.

Take an example of a boat sailing across the flowing river. The boat starts on the west side of the shore
and wants to get to the east side which is directly x meters across horizontally. The boat then travels
eastward horizontally at a speed 𝑣𝑏 , but the river has a current which travels at a velocity southward at
speed 𝑣𝑟 . Then two questions arise: how long does it take the boat to reach the other shore and how
much distance does the boat travel? In order to solve this latter problem, we will have to solve the first
and that is how long does it take the boat to reach the other side? First, let us create a visual of this
problem:

They key to solving such a question is to understand that 𝑣𝑏 and 𝑣𝑟 are the perpendicular components
of the actual velocity of the boat. To further demonstrate the components, let us change 𝑣𝑏 to be 𝑣𝑥 as
it is the velocity in the x-axis, and let us change 𝑣𝑟 to 𝑣𝑦 as it is the velocity in the y-axis. Now we want to
calculate the time t it will take the object to reach the other shore. Now we must think- in order to reach
the other side of the shore (which is x away as shown in the picture), the boat must obviously displace
or change position. BUT, we know that the boat must displace HORIZONTALLY across to reach the other
side of the shore, that is, the boat must displace along the X-AXIS because the shore is separated along
the x-axis. Then this means that no matter what velocity in the y-axis, the only velocity that will
contribute towards reaching the other side of the shore is the x-axis velocity. For instance, let the
velocity along the x-axis be 0. Then that means that the boat CANNOT displace horizontally as there is
only a y-axis velocity causing the boat to change its velocity along the y-axis. Visually, this hypothetical
instance-when the velocity of the boat or the velocity along the x-axis is 0- can be seen as follows:

84
Since we let the velocity of the boat (denoted 𝑣𝑏 or 𝑣𝑥 ) to be 0, then we can ignore it in our diagram
altoghter. So now the only velocity is downward which causes the position of the boat to change its
postiion downward. Since there is only one velocity along one axis, we can apply one-dimensional
kinematics. Let the velocity 𝑣𝑟 be replaced by 𝑣𝑦 as that tells us the change in position along the y-axis.

∆𝑦
����⃗
𝑣 𝑦 =
𝑡

This means that the velocity along the y-axis causes the object to change its position along the y-axis.
Furthermore, since the velocity of the boat is downward, the velocity in the y- axis is negative, so

∆𝑦
−𝑣𝑦 =
𝑡

−𝑣𝑦 𝑡 = ∆𝑦

−𝑣𝑦 𝑡 = 𝑦𝑓 − 𝑦𝑖

𝑦𝑖 − 𝑣𝑦 𝑡 = 𝑦𝑓

𝑦𝑓 = 𝑦𝑖 − 𝑣𝑦 𝑡

So the final position along the y-axis decreases or goes downward as time goes by. So after some
amount of any arbitrary time t, the visual might look like this:

85
So after any amount of time t, the boat will ONLY displace in the y-axis. Notice how even after that time
t, the boat will never get closer to the other shore. Then even after ANY AMOUNT OF TIME, the boat will
NEVER get closer to the shore because the boat can only change its position along the y-axis because of
some velocity in the y-axis! The boat can NEVER displace in the x -axis because we let the velocity in the
x-axis to be 0, which means that the boat can never get near the other side of the shore because the
velocity does not displace it in that direction. The velocity in the x axis, however, would cause the boat
to change its position along the x-axis which is the direction the boat needs to go. So this assumption of
the velocity in the x-axis being 0, was to only demonstrate that ONLY a velocity in a direction will cause a
motion in the t direction. So ONLY a velocity along the x-axis of the boat will cause the boat displace to
the x-axis. Since the velocity in the y-axis has no bearing on getting the boat closer to the shore (as the
velocity in the y-axis causes displacement only in the y-axis and not in the x-axis), in order to determine
how long it takes to get across to the other shore, the x-velocity component is the only factor. So now
disregarding our assumption that the velocity in the x-axis is 0, and returning to some velocity of the
boat, we have that:

86
The object takes t time to get to the other side of the shore, but that means that the object MUST
displace along the x axis, because the shore is distance x away horizontally. So the 𝑣𝑦 has no bearing on
the time it takes to get across, because 𝑣𝑦 only changes the position in the y-axis. To move across, the
boat needs to change its position along the x-axis, hence we must focus on 𝑣𝑥 .

∆𝑥
𝑣𝑥 =
𝑡

Where the 𝑣𝑥 signifies velocity in the x-axis, 𝑡 represnts the time it takes to travel acrosss the shore, and
∆𝑥 is the displacement of the boat in order to reach the other side of the shore. Then notice how the
boat needs to displace along the x-axis by x amount of much in order to change its position to the other
side of the shore; that is the boat needs displace by x along the x-axis and the only velocity changing the
x-position is the velocity of the boat𝑣𝑥 . So let t be the time it takes to displace x amount along the x-axis,
then:
𝑥
𝑣𝑥 =
𝑡

𝑣𝑥 𝑡 = 𝑥
𝑥
𝑡=
𝑣𝑥

So we can relate the time it takes to get to the other side of the shore to the distance between the
shores and the velocity of the boat along the x-axis. Anyway, the key point is that since the boat must
displace in the x-axis to get to the shore, we are only concerned with the x-component velocity. Now we
know how long the boat took during this trip, so since we were asked with the second question of how
much distance the boat covered, notice that the answer cannot be x. The distance the boat travels
CANNOT be the horizontal distance between the shores as the boat DOES NOT travel horizontally;
remember that the boat travels horizontally AND vertically! In other words, the boat can only displace in
the direction of its net (which means total or sum) velocity- that we can show:

87
The distance d that the boat travels is not the distance x between the shores because the boat travels in
the x-component and the y-component, that is the boat travels right and down at the same time which
means that the object displaces rightward and downward at the same time. It makes sense that if there
is velocity directed to the right then the object moves to the right. If there is a velocity directed down,
the objects moves down. So if a velocity is applied rightward and downward, then the object moves
some angle in-between "down" and "right". In this case there is the velocity of the boat which is
rightward and the velocity of the river which is downward, so the boat doesn’t travel rightward nor does
it travel downward- but the travels somewhere in-between. If we take our diagram and remove the
velocity picture to just get a picture of how the displacement looks like:

Now the problem is to calculate d. But in order to find that distance d, we need to know the distance x
and the distance y because then we can apply Pythagorean Theorem. Remember though that this is
distance d the boat travels ONCE it reaches the shore, and we have already calculated the time it takes
𝑥
the object to reach the shore: it takes time 𝑡 = (as we have proven before) for the object to reach the
𝑣𝑥
shore. And the only "thing" that changes distance of the boat along the x-axis is the x-component of
velocity, so the only thing that changes the distance x is 𝑣𝑥 .

∆𝑥
𝑣𝑥 =
𝑡

Since we want find the displacement, along the x-axis, of the object once it reaches the shore which
𝑥
takes a time of 𝑡 = :
𝑣𝑥

𝑥 = 𝑣𝑥 𝑡

The length x is the velocity in the x-axis by the time it took to travel to the shore. Similarly, the only
"thing" that changes the distance of the boat along the y-axis, is the y-component of velocity, so the
only thing that changes the distance y is 𝑣𝑦 .

∆𝑦
−𝑣𝑦 =
𝑡

88
 𝑥
But we want to find the displacement y the boat travels along the y-axis in the time 𝑡 = because this
𝑣𝑥
is the time it takes for the boat to travel in this trip. Then the change in position after this much amount
of the time is the displacement the boat travels AT THE END OF THE TRIP or at the other shore.

∆𝑦
−𝑣𝑦 = 𝑥
𝑣𝑥

∆𝑦(𝑣𝑥 )
−𝑣𝑦 =
𝑥

∆𝑦(𝑣𝑥 ) = −𝑣𝑦 𝑥

�−𝑣𝑦 �𝑥
∆𝑦 =
(𝑣𝑥 )

But this tenant that the displacement is negative, but that means that the distance is downward
because notice that the velocity in the y-axis is downward, so obviously the displacement is downward
or the distance is downward. Hence the actual distance y is:
𝑣𝑦 𝑥
𝑦=
𝑣𝑥

So the distance d can be calculated by using Pythagorean Theorem as this is a right triangle (the x-axis is
perpendicular to the y-axis).

𝑣𝑦 𝑥 2
𝑑2 = 𝑥 2 + � �
𝑣𝑥

𝑣𝑦 2 𝑥 2
𝑑2 = 𝑥 2 +
𝑣𝑥 2

89
 𝑣 2
Now I can multiply 𝑥 2 by 𝑣𝑥2 as this is just multiplying 𝑥 2 by 1 which doesn't change the equation but
𝑥
lets us manipulate to a reducing form.

𝑣𝑥 2 𝑥 2 𝑣𝑦 2 𝑥 2
𝑑2 = +
𝑣𝑥 2 𝑣𝑥 2

𝑣𝑥 2 𝑥 2 + 𝑣𝑦 2 𝑥 2
𝑑2 =
𝑣𝑥 2

Factoring out the common multiple 𝑥 2 :

�𝑣𝑥 2 + 𝑣𝑦 2 �
𝑑2 = 𝑥 2
𝑣𝑥 2

So taking the square root:

�𝑣𝑥 2 + 𝑣𝑦 2 �
𝑑 = �𝑥 2
𝑣𝑥 2

��𝑣𝑥 2 + 𝑣𝑦 2 �
𝑑= �𝑥 2
�𝑣𝑥 2

𝑥
𝑑= ��𝑣𝑥 2 + 𝑣𝑦 2 �
𝑣𝑥

With this extent of manipulation, we can produce general equations for general problems: but you
might ask- "Hey! Since the distance 𝑑 is based off the lengths x and y, how come there is only an x
variable in the equation and no y variable?!" Though a good question, remember that the variable y was
𝑣𝑦 𝑥
replaced by because this tells the distance y in terms of the time it took the boat to travel to the
𝑣𝑥
other shore. That time is COMPLETELY INDEPENEDENT on the velocity in the y-axis as it is only
dependent on the velocity in the x-axis since the shore is only displaced along the x-axis.

Now that there is understanding of velocity in two-dimension- what about acceleration? There can be
acceleration but the curiosity arises of how acceleration works in two-dimensions. Let us consider that
there is an object initially a rest. Then there is some positive constant acceleration a at a certain angle 𝜃
above the horizontal, which causes the object to obviously displace. But in what direction does the
object displace? What is the velocity of the object after a certain amount time? In what direction is the
velocity? What is the x-component of velocity and what is the y-component of velocity?

90
In order to answer these questions, let us apply common sense. Since there is a positive constant
acceleration, then object's velocity will increase at a constant rate. Since the object's velocity is
increasing, then the object must displace, that is the object move. Yet since acceleration is in that
specific direction, the velocity is in that specific direction changes. So then the displacement is in that
specific displacement, that is the object moves in the same direction as the acceleration.

Notice that the velocity of the object is always in the same direction as this constant positive
acceleration. By definition we know that acceleration is

∆𝑣
𝑎=
𝑡

∆𝑣 = 𝑎𝑡

𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖 = 𝑎𝑡

But since the object was initially at rest, the initial velocity of the object is 0, so

𝑣𝑓 = 𝑎𝑡

So the velocity after any amount of time is the acceleration by the time. Since we have also deduced
that the velocity is in the direction acceleration, we can correctly say that the object changes velocity
(due to acceleration) but the velocity of the object is always in the same direction as the acceleration.
No matter how much time has passed, since this acceleration is constant, the velocity changes at a

91
constant rate in that same direction as acceleration. Basically, the velocity will always be angle 𝜃 above
the horizontal because the accelration is angle 𝜃 above the horizontal. Yet as we have mentioned in the
boat examples, this is velocity in two-dimensions, so we can break up this vector velocity into
components of the velocity along the x-axis and y-axis.

Remember that the velocity v as in the diagram above is

𝑣𝑓 = 𝑎𝑡

So let us arbitrarily say that after 𝑡1 amount of time the object has a velocity v as in the above diagram
and let us call this v to be𝑣1 .

𝑣1 = 𝑎𝑡1

Then that means that this velocity has an x-component velocity we will denote as 𝑣𝑥1 and a y-
component velocity we will denote as 𝑣𝑦1 . So with our new terms, the diagram can be re-represented
as:

And since this forms a right triangle

𝑣1 2 = 𝑣𝑥1 2 + 𝑣𝑦1 2

𝑣1 = �𝑣𝑥1 2 + 𝑣𝑦1 2

𝑎𝑡1 = �𝑣𝑥1 2 + 𝑣𝑦1 2

Also, we can use trigonometry to solve for the angle 𝜃

𝑣𝑦1
tan 𝜃 =
𝑣𝑥1

92
 𝑣𝑦1
𝜃 = tan−1 � �
𝑣𝑥1

Let us now consider the velocity of the object after a DIFFERENT AMOUNT of time then 𝑡1 and let us call
this new time to be 𝑡2 .

𝑡2 ≠ 𝑡1
Let us call the velocity after time 𝑡2 to be 𝑣2 and let us call the x-component of this velocity to be 𝑣𝑥2
and let us call the y-component of this velocity to be 𝑣𝑦2 . Similarly, we can create a diagram
representing this to look like:

Since there is a constant acceleration, after 𝑡2 interval of time, the velocity of the object is

𝑣2 = 𝑎𝑡2

And since this forms a right triangle

𝑣2 2 = 𝑣𝑥2 2 + 𝑣𝑦2 2

𝑣2 = �𝑣𝑥2 2 + 𝑣𝑦2 2

𝑎𝑡2 = �𝑣𝑥2 2 + 𝑣𝑦2 2

BUT, WE DEFINE that the time of 𝑡1 and the time of 𝑡2 are different:

𝑡2 ≠ 𝑡1

𝑎𝑡2 ≠ 𝑎𝑡1

So then the velocity at the time of 𝑡1 is different than the velocity at the time of 𝑡2 -

𝑣2 ≠ 𝑣1

�𝑣𝑥2 2 + 𝑣𝑦2 2 ≠ �𝑣𝑥1 2 + 𝑣𝑦1 2

93
Then the only way for these two equations to be different is if 𝑣𝑥2 along with 𝑣𝑦2 are different then 𝑣𝑥1
along with 𝑣𝑦1 .

𝑣2𝑥 ≠ 𝑣1𝑥

𝑣2𝑦 ≠ 𝑣1𝑦

This is also intuitive and can be thought as of common sense, as the velocities are different, so then the
x-component velocities and y-component velocities must be different. If you visualize the diagrams,
notice that 𝑣2𝑥 is not 𝑣1𝑥 and how 𝑣2𝑦 is not 𝑣1𝑦 . But notice that as we have deduced before, the
velocity after any time MUST BE IN THE SAME DIRECTION because the acceleration is constant in that
same direction (i.e. if you can cause acceleration upward on the box, then obviously the box's velocity
changes upward). Since the velocity at 𝑣1 is angle 𝜃 above the horizontal (to define its direction I used
angles), and the velocity 𝑣2 is in the same direction as 𝑣1 , then 𝑣2 must have an angle 𝜃 above the
horizontal. So taking the tangent of that angle when the velocity of the object is 𝑣2 is:
𝑣𝑦2
tan 𝜃 =
𝑣𝑥2
𝑣𝑦2
𝜃 = tan−1 � �
𝑣𝑥2

But since the angle at velocity 𝑣1 is the same as the angle at velocity 𝑣2 :
𝑣𝑦1
𝜃 = tan−1 � �
𝑣𝑥1
𝑣𝑦2 𝑣𝑦1
tan−1 � � = tan−1 � �
𝑣𝑥2 𝑣𝑥1
𝑣𝑦2 𝑣𝑦1
=
𝑣𝑥2 𝑣𝑥1

Then let us let say 𝑣𝑦2 = 𝑘𝑣𝑦1 where 𝑘 is some constant. This means that we let the velocity in the y-
axis after some amount of time be some arbitrary multiple of the original velocity along the y-axis.

𝑘𝑣𝑦1 𝑣𝑦1
=
𝑣𝑥2 𝑣𝑥1

But since the equation MUST be true as we have derived prior, then that means 𝑣𝑥2 = 𝑘𝑣𝑥1 because
this shows:

𝑘𝑣𝑦1 𝑣𝑦1
=
𝑘𝑣𝑥1 𝑣𝑥1

So these definitions satisfy our equation. Then redrawing our velocity after 𝑡2 , in terms of 𝑘 and 𝑣𝑦1 and
𝑣𝑥1 :

94
This is a right triangle which means then Pythagorean Theorem can be applied to find the value of𝑣2 .

𝑣2 2 = 𝑣𝑥2 2 + 𝑣𝑦2 2

And since we let 𝑣𝑦2 = 𝑘𝑣𝑦1 which means 𝑣𝑥2 = 𝑘𝑣𝑥1 , substituting back yields:

2
𝑣2 2 = (𝑘𝑣𝑥1 )2 + �𝑘𝑣𝑦1 �

𝑣2 2 = 𝑘 2 𝑣𝑥1 2 + 𝑘 2 𝑣𝑥2 2

Factoring out the common factor𝑘 2,

𝑣2 2 = 𝑘 2 (𝑣𝑥1 2 + 𝑣𝑥2 2 )

But Ah! Recall that 𝑣1 2 = 𝑣𝑥1 2 + 𝑣𝑦1 2 which means-

𝑣2 2 = 𝑘 2 𝑣1 2

𝑣2 = 𝑘𝑣1

So the velocity at a later time is just a multiple of the velocity at the previous time; but it is also the
same multiple of the velocity in the x-axis and the velocity in the y-axis. Clearly, the velocity in the x-axis
and y-axis change over time, hence there is clear acceleration along the x-axis and the y-axis. But now let
us verify whether or not that acceleration is a constant. So let us take the average acceleration in the x-
axis

95
 ∆𝑣
𝑎�𝑥 =
∆𝑡

If we let the final time be 𝑡2 and the initial time to be 𝑡1 , then the final velocity must be 𝑣2𝑥 and the
initial velocity must be 𝑣1𝑥 .
𝑣2𝑥 − 𝑣1𝑥
𝑎�𝑥 =
𝑡2 − 𝑡1

Since 𝑣2𝑥 = 𝑘𝑣1𝑥 ,

𝑘𝑣1𝑥 − 𝑣1𝑥
𝑎�𝑥 =
𝑡2 − 𝑡1

(𝑘 − 1)𝑣1𝑥
𝑎�𝑥 =
∆𝑡

If we now let the time be an arbitrary multiple of itself so we can examine the average acceleration at
any time, then we let the new time interval be 𝑛∆𝑡.

∆𝑣
𝑎�𝑥 =
𝑛∆𝑡
𝑣2𝑛𝑥 − 𝑣1𝑛𝑥
𝑎�𝑥 =
𝑛𝑡2 − 𝑛𝑡1

So then we have velocity 𝑣2𝑛𝑥 , the velocity along the x-axis at time 𝑛𝑡2 , and we have the velocity 𝑣1𝑛𝑥 ,
the velocity along the x-axis at time 𝑛𝑡1 . We also know:

𝑎�𝑥 ∆𝑡 = ∆𝑣

Since the initial velocity of the box is 0 at time 0 (the box was initially at rest)-

𝑎�𝑥 𝑡 = 𝑣

Now at time 𝑛𝑡2 ,

𝑎�𝑥 𝑛𝑡2 = 𝑣2𝑛𝑥

𝑛𝑎�𝑥 𝑡2 = 𝑣2𝑛𝑥

Notice, though, that 𝑎�𝑥 𝑡2 = 𝑣2𝑥 as that is the defined velocity after 𝑡2 time.

𝑛𝑣2𝑥 = 𝑣2𝑛𝑥

If we now let the time be 𝑛𝑡1 ,

𝑎�𝑥 𝑛𝑡1 = 𝑣1𝑛𝑥

𝑛𝑎�𝑥 𝑡1 = 𝑣1𝑛𝑥

96
Notice, though, that 𝑎�𝑥 𝑡1 = 𝑣1𝑥 as that is the defined velocity after 𝑡1 time.

𝑛𝑣1𝑥 = 𝑣1𝑛𝑥

Substituting 𝑛𝑣1𝑥 and 𝑛𝑣2𝑥 for 𝑣1𝑛𝑥 and 𝑣2𝑛𝑥 respectively:

𝑛𝑣2𝑥 − 𝑛𝑣1𝑥
𝑎�𝑥 =
𝑛𝑡2 − 𝑛𝑡1

𝑛(𝑣2𝑥 − 𝑣1𝑥 )
𝑎�𝑥 =
𝑛∆𝑡
(𝑣2𝑥 − 𝑣1𝑥 )
𝑎�𝑥 =
∆𝑡
𝑘𝑣1𝑥 − 𝑣1𝑥
𝑎�𝑥 =
∆𝑡
(𝑘 − 1)𝑣1𝑥
𝑎�𝑥 =
∆𝑡

WOAH! This (at time 𝑛∆𝑡) is the SAME acceleration as deduced after ∆𝑡 amount of time. So the
acceleration after some amount of time is the same acceleration as any other amount of time which
means that the acceleration is constant along the x axis. Using this same exact procedure, we can just as
easily deduce the same for the y-axis. Hence, the acceleration is constant along the x-axis and along the
y-axis. The beauty of this statement is that the velocities in the y-axis and x-axis change at a constant
rate. This means that there has to be some constant acceleration that causes these changes in velocities;
since the y-component velocity changes at a constant rate, there must be acceleration in the y-axis, and
since the x-component of velocity changes at a constant rate there must be x-axis acceleration. So
collectively, since there is a constant acceleration at a certain angle, the velocity changes at the angle.
Yet we can break down that velocity into its x and y component velocities which also change at a
constant rate. This implies that there we can also break down the acceleration into its x and y
accelerations which cause the component velocities to change. So redrawing our acceleration:

We have derived the very intuitive logic that acceleration can also be broken down into components, as
since velocities can, then the rate at which the velocity changes can also be. Extending this concept of
acceleration can lead to an even better understanding of two-dimensional kinematics. For we know how
to break velocity into components, so we can now also break acceleration into components and extend
our scope of one dimensional motion. For instead of approaching kinematics one dimensionally, that is

97
bodies moving along a single axes, let us now apply kinematics to an object moving two dimensionally.
Consider an object thrown two dimensionally with a velocity v, with x and y component velocities: say I
throw a stone at some angle 𝜃 from the ground so the stone is moving not only up and down, but also
left and right. However, this concept of moving to upward while moving to the right might still seem
confusing, so let us reconsider our previously answered question: what if I throw a ball upward? Yet, as
by now, the answer to this seems rather obvious- the ball has an initial velocity upward, and a constant
acceleration due to gravity downward, so by applying the kinematics to one dimension we can and have
obtained several expressions to calculate the time the ball is in the air, the maximum height it reaches,
the time it takes to reach that height, and so forth. Yet now, what if I (whilst holding the ball) am
running at a constant initial velocity and then launch the ball upward? The only difference with this case
and the other, is that the former case had no initial velocity along the x-axis, for when I am running with
the ball, I have a velocity along the x-axis, yet the ball is also moving with me since I am holding the ball
so the ball also has that same velocity along the x-axis. Then when I launch the ball upward, I give it a y-
component velocity, hence the ball is moving up and to the side or the ball is in two dimensional motion.

But the ball is also experiencing a gravitational acceleration, denoted g, along only the y-axis. Since
acceleration changes the velocity, the y-component of acceleration changes the y-component velocity
and the x-component acceleration changes the x-component velocity. Since the gravitational
acceleration is only along the y-axis in this case because the acceleration is always aimed downward, the
acceleration is only changing the y-component velocity and cannot at all effect the x-component velocity
as there is no acceleration along the x-axis. So let us first attempt to derive a visual representation of
this motion from throwing or launching or projecting an object as some angle- we call this projectile
motion; so let us attempt to derive an expression which might tell us how the projectile motion might
look like. If we take the sine of the angle, then we can relate the y-component velocity to the actual
velocity:
𝑣𝑦
sin 𝜃 =
𝑣

98
 𝑣𝑦 = 𝑣 sin 𝜃

If we take the cosine of the angle, then we can relate the x component velocity to the actual velocity:
𝑣𝑥
cos 𝜃 =
𝑣

𝑣𝑥 = 𝑣 cos 𝜃

Since there is no acceleration along the x-axis, the only thing that makes the ball move along the x-axis is
the initial x-component velocity. But velocity is displacement per unit time, so let us assume that t time
has passed, which means the object has displaced along the x-axis (denoted ∆𝑥):

𝛥𝑥
𝑣𝑥 =
𝑡

𝛥𝑥 = 𝑣𝑥 𝑡

If we let the initial x position to be called 0 (just to make it look easier), then we can rewrite the above to
be in a simpler form.

𝑥 = 𝑣𝑥 𝑡

But since the velocity along the x-component is related to the actual velocity of the object launching at
an angle:

𝑥 = 𝑣 cos 𝜃 t

This was a simple proven equation since there was no acceleration along this axis, but along the y-axis
there is acceleration downward from the initial velocity along the y –axis which is upward. But since this
acceleration can be assumed a constant, then we can use our previously derived equation for
displacement caused by a constant acceleration. And the acceleration is negative along the y-axis, the
velocity is positive along the y-axis, and our displacement of interest is along the y-axis which we will
denote 𝛥𝑦 so by applying our expression of displacement along the y-axis due to a constant acceleration
is:

1
𝛥𝑦 = 𝑣𝑦 𝑡 + (−𝑔)𝑡 2
2

But if we denote the initial y position of the ball to be 0 (for simplicity), we get an easier form to deal
with.

1
𝑦 = 𝑣𝑦 𝑡 − g𝑡 2
2

But substituting 𝑣𝑦 = 𝑣 sin 𝜃, we get-

1
𝑦 = 𝑣 sin 𝜃 𝑡 − g𝑡 2
2

99
But from our equation 𝑥 = 𝑣 cos 𝜃 t, if we solve for time t we get an equation that relates time to x
position of the object and the angle 𝜃 that the ball was launched:
𝑥
𝑡=
𝑣 cos 𝜃
1
Plugging this time t back into the equation 𝑦 = 𝑣 sin 𝜃 𝑡 − g𝑡 2 , we get a new equation which elimates
2
all the time variables with x’s and 𝜃’s.

𝑥 1 𝑥 2
𝑦 = 𝑣 sin 𝜃 � � − g� �
𝑣 cos 𝜃 2 𝑣 cos 𝜃

𝑥𝑣 sin 𝜃 1 𝑥2
𝑦= − 𝑔 2
𝑣 cos 𝜃 2 𝑣 cos2 𝜃

𝑔𝑥 2
𝑦 = tan 𝜃 𝑥 2 −
2𝑣 2 cos2 𝜃

Rearranging yields:
𝑔
𝑦=− 𝑥 2 + tan 𝜃 𝑥 + 0
2𝑣 2 cos 2 𝜃

But since this is in a quadratic form (𝑦 = 𝑎𝑥 2 + 𝑏𝑥 + 𝑐), the above equation graphically looks like a
parabola. This means if we graph the y-position along the y-axis and the x-position along the x-axis, the
graph will look like a downward parabola (downward because the sign of a in this case is negative).
However, this expression tells us the path traveled by throwing a ball at some angle or, in general terms,
this formula explains that the path of projectile motion is parabolic. So if I were to draw the pathway of
the ball, which would hold the same meaning as graphing the above equation, then it would look like:

100
Since we were specifically looking at gravity and pathways, let us generalize into a most pure and
fundamental concept, often times called the heart of kinematics, and that is pathways and trajectories.
If we consider a particle in free space (absent of all things except itself and physics), then how might
literally draw out the path in with particle travels given all initial conditions such as acceleration,
velocity, etc? This question does generalize classical kinematics in a very unspecific sense and is the best
derivation to understand kinematics. Before leaping to such bold questions, consider two velocities
acting on a particle in free space, and let us assume that these velocities 𝑣 ����⃗1 and 𝑣
����⃗are
2 in different
directions and/or different magnitudes. We want to find some way to consolidate or combine these
velocity vectors together to form a simple one net velocity vector 𝑣⃗.

Yet both velocity vectors have components that go along the x and y coordinates. The red vector has
rightward component whilst the blue vector has a leftward component (which means along the x-axis).
Since we have already shown that the perpendicular components don’t affect each other (the vertical
velocity components don’t affect the horizontal components), then the particle, in this case, foes
simultaneously rightward by the red velocity and leftward by the blue velocity. But the particle cannot
go left and right at the same time, so these “tug-a-wars” are settled by brute magnitude; that is, the
particle goes left or right depending on the sum of left/right components. If the red vector has more a
rightward velocity than the leftward velocity from the blue vector, the particle travels right; if the blue
vector has more leftward velocity than the rightward velocity from the red vector, the particle goes left.
Let us denote the x and y components of the red vector 𝑣 ����⃗1 to respectively be 𝑣1𝑥 and 𝑣1𝑦 , and let us
denote the x and y components of the blue vector ����⃗
𝑣2 to respectively be 𝑣2𝑥 and 𝑣2𝑦 .

101
Since directions and sign are important, we define direction to be anything pointing to the right is
positive and anything pointing to the left is negative. Then the net velocity vector has a component
along the x-axis 𝑣𝑥 that is simply the sum of the velocities along the x-axis. So say the particle feels a tug
to the right of 5 meters per second and a tug to the left at 4 meters per second: the particle will go right
with a speed of 1 meter per second.

𝑣𝑥 = 𝑣1𝑥 + 𝑣2𝑥

In this case, the blue vector has a leftward velocity that seems to be greater than the x-component of
the red vector: so the net velocity vector would point toward the left side in this case.

These same arguments can be made about the y-component velocities, that the particle experiences a
velocity along the y-axis caused by the blue vector, and a velocity in the y-axis caused by the red vector.
Again we have to be direction specific, so let us define up as positive and down as negative- then the net
velocity along the y-axis 𝑣𝑦 is the sum of the velocities along the y-axis.

𝑣𝑦 = 𝑣1𝑦 + 𝑣2𝑦

In our specific case, both the blue and the red vector have y-components that point upward- so the net
velocity along the y-axis is a “bigger” upward. Redrawing our single net velocity vector (to an
approximate):

102
This is considering only two velocity vectors, if we consider 𝑛 amount of velocity vectors, than the single
net velocity vector 𝑣, can be given by its x and y components 𝑣𝑥 and 𝑣𝑦 respectively.

𝑣𝑥 = 𝑣1𝑥 + 𝑣2𝑥 + 𝑣3𝑥 + 𝑣4𝑥 + ⋯ + 𝑣𝑛−1𝑥 + 𝑣𝑛𝑥

𝑣𝑦 = 𝑣1𝑦 + 𝑣2𝑦 + 𝑣3𝑦 + 𝑣4𝑦 + ⋯ + 𝑣𝑛−1𝑦 + 𝑣𝑛𝑦

𝑣 = �𝑣𝑥 2 + 𝑣𝑦 2

2
𝑣 = �(𝑣1𝑥 + 𝑣2𝑥 + 𝑣3𝑥 + 𝑣4𝑥 + ⋯ + 𝑣𝑛−1𝑥 + 𝑣𝑛𝑥 )2 + �𝑣1𝑦 + 𝑣2𝑦 + 𝑣3𝑦 + 𝑣4𝑦 + ⋯ + 𝑣𝑛−1𝑦 + 𝑣𝑛𝑦 �

We can represent 𝑣 in a simpler form with 𝑖 representing the x-axis and 𝑗 representing the y-axis:

𝑣⃗ = 𝑣𝑥 𝚤̂ + 𝑣𝑦 𝚥̂

𝑣⃗ = (𝑣1𝑥 + 𝑣2𝑥 + 𝑣3𝑥 + 𝑣4𝑥 + ⋯ + 𝑣𝑛−1𝑥 + 𝑣𝑛𝑥 )𝚤̂ + �𝑣1𝑦 + 𝑣2𝑦 + 𝑣3𝑦 + 𝑣4𝑦 + ⋯ + 𝑣𝑛−1𝑦 + 𝑣𝑛𝑦 �𝚥̂

This general consolidation of velocity vectors can be applied to any vectors in general as long as they are
within the same dimension. For example, I can consolidate vectors like this (for the same reasons given)
only because all the vectors were representing velocity. If one vector were acceleration and another
velocity, I could not combine it for the same reasons I cannot combine a unit length with a unit time or a
unit mass- they are fundamentally different. Then if I have any vectors of the same dimension (e.g.
displacement, velocity, acceleration, etc.), I can simplify them into a net vector by adding its
components together which form the net components. We have shown how to combine velocity vectors
like this, but the same exact method would work for combining acceleration vectors, or displacement
vectors, or any other vectors not shown.

We have dealt with displacements due to constant velocities an constant acceleration. Velocity is simply
the rate at which the position changes and acceleration is simply the rate at which velocity changes. But

103
what if the acceleration is changing? Such is defined and called jerk (you experience this when you jerk
your car- you change your acceleration and that rate at which you change it is defined to be jerk; much
like you accelerate when you change your velocity and that rate at which you change our velocity is
acceleration). These definitions are similar and are so much easier to comprehend conceptually (which
implies mathematically)- so we can mathematically give the average jerk 𝚥̅ over a time interval ∆𝑡:

∆𝑎
𝚥̅ =
∆𝑡

Likewise, we can give the instantaneous jerk 𝚥⃗:

𝑑𝑎
𝚥⃗ =
𝑑𝑡

We should note that jerk must be a vector quantity as it has a magnitude and direction: the magnitude
is the value at which the acceleration changes and the direction is along what axis acceleration changes).

We have already deduced a way to figure out how much a particle displaced given that acceleration is a
constant, yet what if jerk is a constant? Consider a jerk versus time graph (our goal is to figure out, given
all initial conditions, a displacement caused by a constant jerk after some amount of time) and since jerk
is a constant, the graph must look like a line. Let us say that the constant value of jerk is 𝑗.

Since jerk is a constant, then the acceleration must be constantly varying with time. This means that an
acceleration versus time graph would have a constant slope (as its slope is the constant value of jerk).
Let us say the initial value of acceleration is 𝑎𝑖 ; since jerk is a constant, the final acceleration 𝑎𝑓 can be
given as:
𝑎𝑓 − 𝑎𝑖
𝑗=
∆𝑡

Expressing ∆𝑡 as 𝑡, since they both mean time elapsed, give us:

104
 𝑎𝑓 = 𝑎𝑖 + 𝑗𝑡

Since 𝑎𝑓 is the final acceleration, we can rename it to be the acceleration after any time 𝑡- we can
basically call acceleration as a function of time 𝑎(𝑡).

𝑎(𝑡) = 𝑎𝑖 + 𝑗𝑡

This means that the acceleration versus time graph is a line with a constant slope 𝑗.

Since we know how acceleration varies with time, let us try to figure out the velocity as a function of
time. In general, acceleration at a particular time 𝑡 is the instantaneous rate at which the velocity at
time 𝑡 changes with time.

𝑑𝑣(𝑡)
𝑎(𝑡) =
𝑑𝑡
∆𝑣(𝑡)
𝑎(𝑡) = lim
∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡

∆𝑣(𝑡) = lim 𝑎(𝑡) ∆𝑡

∆𝑡→0

Then let us say that the ∆𝑣(𝑡) over a small amount of time is:

∆𝑣(𝑡) = lim 𝑣(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) − 𝑣(𝑡)

∆𝑡→0

lim 𝑣(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) = lim 𝑎(𝑡) ∆𝑡 + 𝑣(𝑡)

∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡→0

For clarity, let us call 𝑡 = 0, and so the velocity at time 𝑡 = 0 is 𝑣(0) = 𝑣𝑖 , and the acceleration at time
𝑡 = 0 is 𝑎(0) = 𝑎(0∆𝑡)

105
 lim 𝑣(∆𝑡) = lim 𝑎(0∆𝑡) ∆𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖
∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡→0

This is the velocity after an instant or after ∆𝑡 → 0 time. Yet what might be the velocity after the next
instant- in other words, what is lim 𝑣(2∆𝑡)? Well we know that at the moment before, the velocity is
∆𝑡→0
𝑣(∆𝑡) and at this moment the acceleration is lim∆𝑡→0 𝑎(∆𝑡).

𝑣(2∆𝑡) − 𝑣(∆𝑡)
lim 𝑎(∆𝑡) = lim
∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡

𝑣(2∆𝑡) = lim 𝑎(∆𝑡)∆𝑡 + 𝑣(∆𝑡)

∆𝑡→0

If we substitute lim 𝑣(∆𝑡) = lim∆𝑡→0 𝑎(0∆𝑡) ∆𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖 , then:

∆𝑡→0

lim 𝑣(2∆𝑡) = lim 𝑎(1∆𝑡)∆𝑡 + 𝑎(0∆𝑡)∆𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖

∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡→0

Likewise, we can continue this for the next instant 𝑣(3∆𝑡),

lim 𝑣(3∆𝑡) = lim 𝑎(3∆𝑡)∆𝑡 + 𝑎(1∆𝑡)∆𝑡 + 𝑎(0∆𝑡)∆𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖

∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡→0

And in general, after 𝑛 instances:

lim 𝑣(𝑛∆𝑡) = lim 𝑎(𝑛∆𝑡)∆𝑡 + 𝑎�(𝑛 − 1)∆𝑡�∆𝑡 + ⋯ + 𝑎(1∆𝑡)∆𝑡 + 𝑎(0∆𝑡)∆𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖

∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡→0

lim 𝑣(𝑛∆𝑡) − 𝑣𝑖 = lim � 𝑎(𝑖∆𝑡)∆𝑡

∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡→0
𝑖=0

Since we let 𝑡 = 0:
𝑛

lim 𝑣(𝑡 + 𝑛∆𝑡) − 𝑣(𝑡) = lim � 𝑎(𝑡 + 𝑖∆𝑡)∆𝑡

∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡→0
𝑖=0

But an instant is a infinitesimal time, and any finite constitution of instances is still an infinitesimal
amount of time; in order for us to produce a finite interval, we can think of this as an infinite collection
of instances. In other words, if we let n approach infinity, we get a finite time.
𝑛

lim 𝑣(𝑡 + 𝑛∆𝑡) − 𝑣(𝑡) = lim � 𝑎(𝑡 + 𝑖∆𝑡)∆𝑡

∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡→0
𝑛→∞ 𝑛→∞ 𝑖=0

lim 𝑣(𝑛∆𝑡) − 𝑣(0) = lim � 𝑎(0 + 𝑖∆𝑡)∆𝑡

∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡→0
𝑛→∞ 𝑛→∞ 𝑖=0

Since lim 𝑛∆𝑡 is some number (some finite time), let us call this an arbitrary time 𝑡.
∆𝑡→0
𝑛→∞

106
 𝑛

𝑣(𝑡) − 𝑣𝑖 = lim � 𝑎(0 + 𝑖∆𝑡)∆𝑡

∆𝑡→0
𝑛→∞ 𝑖=0

Notice that lim ∑𝑛𝑖=0 𝑎(𝑖∆𝑡)∆𝑡 can be seen as,

∆𝑡→0
𝑛→∞

𝑛 𝑛

lim � 𝑎(0 + 𝑖∆𝑡)∆𝑡 = lim � 𝑎(0 + 𝑖𝑑𝑡)𝑑𝑡

∆𝑡→0 𝑛→∞
𝑛→∞ 𝑖=0 𝑖=0

The lim ∑𝑛𝑖=0 𝑎(𝑖𝑑𝑡)𝑑𝑡 can be seen as an integral.

𝑛→∞

lim � 𝑎(0 + 𝑖𝑑𝑡)𝑑𝑡 = � 𝑎𝑑𝑡

𝑛→∞
𝑖=0

The lower limit of this integral is 0 (because of the 𝑎(0 + 𝑖𝑑𝑡)) and the upper limit is 𝑛∆𝑡 but notice hoe
we defined 𝑛∆𝑡 = 𝑡.
𝑡
𝑣(𝑡) − 𝑣𝑖 = � 𝑎𝑑𝑡
0

Then we can give the velocity at any time 𝑡 to be:

𝑡
𝑣(𝑡) = � 𝑎𝑑𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖
0

But in this specific case, acceleration is a function of time 𝑎(𝑡), so let us substitute that 𝑎(𝑡) = 𝑎𝑖 + 𝑗𝑡.
𝑡
𝑣(𝑡) = � 𝑎(𝑡)𝑑𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖
0

𝑡
𝑣(𝑡) = � (𝑎𝑖 + 𝑗𝑡)𝑑𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖
0

𝑡 𝑡
𝑣(𝑡) = � 𝑎𝑖 𝑑𝑡 + � (𝑗𝑡)𝑑𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖
0 0

Since 𝑎𝑖 and 𝑗 are constants:

𝑡 𝑡
𝑣(𝑡) = 𝑎𝑖 � 𝑑𝑡 + 𝑗 � 𝑡𝑑𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖
0 0

𝑡2
𝑣(𝑡) = 𝑎𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑗 + 𝑣𝑖
2
1
𝑣(𝑡) = 𝑗𝑡 2 + 𝑎𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖
2

107
We can graphically show velocity as a function of time, if jerk is a constant, to be parabolic (since the
velocity function has a time squared).

As you have noticed, we scaled from constant jerk to acceleration as a function of time to velocity as a
function of time- now it’s time to scale down to position as a function of time. For then we can find the
displacement after some amount of time caused by constant jerk. In general, velocity at a particular
time 𝑡 can be given by:

𝑑𝑥(𝑡)
𝑣(𝑡) =
𝑑𝑡

𝑑𝑥(𝑡) = 𝑣(𝑡)𝑑𝑡

Rather than going through a very similar derivation to the one with the acceleration’s relationship to
velocity, we can simply loosely integrate both sides.

� 𝑑𝑥(𝑡) = � 𝑣(𝑡)𝑑𝑡

𝑥(𝑡) = � 𝑣(𝑡)𝑑𝑡 + 𝑥𝑖
0

𝑡
1
𝑥(𝑡) = � � 𝑗𝑡 2 + 𝑎𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖 � 𝑑𝑡 + 𝑥𝑖
2
0

𝑡 𝑡 𝑡
1
𝑥(𝑡) = � 𝑗𝑡 2 𝑑𝑡 + � 𝑎𝑖 𝑡𝑑𝑡 + � 𝑣𝑖 𝑑𝑡 + 𝑥𝑖
2
0 0 0

108
 1 1
𝑥(𝑡) = 𝑗𝑡 3 + 𝑎𝑖 𝑡 2 + 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑥𝑖
6 2

This means that the graph of a position versus time graph is cubic, as the degree of the function is three.

So if we consider a particle that experiences a constant jerk, we can calculate its position after a certain
1 1
amount of time using the derived 𝑥(𝑡) = 𝑗𝑡 3 + 𝑎𝑖 𝑡 2 + 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑥𝑖 . Also notice that if acceleration were
6 2
constant, hen that implies jerk is zero and according to our above formula, if jerk is 0 we get the same
form of displacement as we would if acceleration is constant.

In our search for general kinematics, we must consider not only the displacement on particle caused by
constant jerk, but by a constant anything. For we have considered displacements caused by constant
velocity, constant acceleration, and even constant jerk, but we can go further to constant jounce (which
means the rate at which jerk changes), or constant rate at which jounce changes, or constant rate at
which rate at which jounce changes, and so forth. Notice that each of these rates of change is a
fundamental rate of change of position; that is, velocity is the rate of change of position, acceleration is
the rate of change of the rate of change of position, jerk is the rate of change of the rate of change of
the rate of change of position, and so forth. In other words, velocity is the first derivate of position with
respect to time, acceleration is the second derivative, and jerk is the third derivative, and so on and so
𝑑𝑛𝑥
forth. So let us consider the 𝑛𝑡ℎ derivate of position with respect to time is a constant, and let this
𝑑𝑡 𝑛
𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥 𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥 𝑑 𝑛−3 𝑥
also imply that there may be initial conditions such as initial values of 𝑛−1 , 𝑛−2 , 𝑛−3 , and so forth.
𝑑𝑡 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑖

𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑑𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡)

𝑑𝑛 𝑥 −
= 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1
𝑑𝑡 𝑛 𝑑𝑡

𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡)

𝑑𝑛 𝑥 −
= lim 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1
𝑑𝑡 𝑛 ∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡

109
 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡)
lim = lim ∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1
𝑑𝑛𝑥
Since is a defined to be a constant, then it must be the same for any latter instant. So for the next
𝑑𝑡 𝑛
𝑑𝑛𝑥
instant, the must be the same (we should note that an instant is an infinitesimal time ∆𝑡, and the
𝑑𝑡 𝑛
next instant would be at 2∆𝑡).

𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡)

𝑑𝑛 𝑥 −
= lim 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1
𝑑𝑡 𝑛 ∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡

𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡)

lim = lim ∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1
𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡+∆𝑡)
If we substitute the value of ,
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1

𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡)

lim = lim 2∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1
𝑑𝑛𝑥
Again, since is a defined to be a constant, we can work this out for the next instant at 3∆𝑡.
𝑑𝑡 𝑛

𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 3∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡)

𝑑 𝑥 𝑛 −
= lim 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1
𝑑𝑡 𝑛 ∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡

𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 3∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡)

lim = lim ∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1
𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡+2∆𝑡)
If we substitute the value of ,
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1

𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 3∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡)

lim = lim 3∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1

Recognizing this pattern, we can generalize after any 𝑛 amount of instances.

𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑛∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡)

lim = lim 𝑛∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1

But instances are only instantaneous moments in time and do not compass finite amounts of time- but a
finite period of time is a combination of infinite instances. So as the 𝑛 amount of instances approaches
infinite amount of instance, we have an arbitrary period of time. Then let us now call ∆𝑡 to be some
finite time period rather than a instantaneous moment.

lim 𝑛∆𝑡 = ∆𝑡
𝑛→∞

𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥
If we consider this to our function:
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1

110
 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑛∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡)
lim = lim 𝑛∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0
𝑛→∞
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛
𝑛→∞
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1

𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡)

= ∆𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1
𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡+∆𝑡)
So after any finite amount of ∆𝑡 interval after a particular time 𝑡, we can give with relation to
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1
𝑑𝑛𝑥 𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡)
and at particular time 𝑡. But to make these variables simpler, let us say that the particular
𝑑𝑡 𝑛 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1
𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥(0)
time starts at 𝑡 = 0 and our time interval is renamed from ∆𝑡 to 𝑡; let us say the 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1
at time 𝑡 = 0
𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥
is the initial value renamed to .
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖

𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥

= 𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖

𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡)

Now consider which is the rate at which changes.
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑑𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡)

𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡) −
= 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡)

𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡) −
= lim 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 ∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡)

lim = lim ∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2
𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡)
We just considered at a particular time 𝑡, so let us consider at the next instant at time
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1
𝑡 + ∆𝑡.

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 2𝑑𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑑𝑡)

𝑑 𝑛−1
𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑑𝑡) −
= 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡)

𝑑 𝑛−1
𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) −
= lim 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 ∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡)

lim = lim ∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2
𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡+∆𝑡)
If we substitute for ,
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2

111
 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡)
lim = lim ∆𝑡 + ∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2
𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡)
We just considered at a particular time 𝑡 + ∆𝑡, so let us consider at the next instant at
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1
time 𝑡 + 2∆𝑡.

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 3𝑑𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 2𝑑𝑡)

𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 2𝑑𝑡) −
= 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 3∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡)

𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡) −
= lim 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 ∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 3∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡)

lim = lim ∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2
𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡+2∆𝑡)
If we substitute for ,
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 3∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡)
lim = lim ∆𝑡 + ∆𝑡 + ∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2

We notice a pattern that after any 𝑛 amount of instances from time 𝑡:

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑛∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + (𝑛 − 1)∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + (𝑛 − 2)∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡)
lim = lim ∆𝑡 + ∆𝑡 + ⋯ +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2
𝑛−1
𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑛∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑖∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡)
lim = lim � � ∆𝑡� +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2
𝑖=0

But instances are only instantaneous moments in time and do not compass finite amounts of time- but a
finite period of time is a combination of infinite instances. So as the 𝑛 amount of instances approaches
infinite amount of instance, we have an arbitrary period of time. Then let us now call ∆𝑡 to be some
finite time period rather than a instantaneous moment.

lim 𝑛∆𝑡 = ∆𝑡
𝑛→∞

𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡+𝑛∆𝑡)
So if we reconsider for infinite instances or a finite moment,
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2

𝑛−1
𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑛∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑖∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡)
lim = lim � � ∆𝑡� +
∆𝑡→0
𝑛→∞
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 ∆𝑡→0
𝑛→∞
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2
𝑖=0

And if we substitute lim 𝑛∆𝑡 = ∆𝑡,

𝑛→∞

112
 𝑛−1
𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑖∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡)
= lim � � ∆𝑡� +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 ∆𝑡→0
𝑛→∞
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2
𝑖=0

Notice that this particular infinite sum of infinitesimal parts is the concept and definition of a particular
definite integral.

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑡+∆𝑡 𝑛−1

𝑑 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡)
= � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2

We have said that the particular time starts at 𝑡 = 0 and our time interval is renamed from ∆𝑡 to 𝑡, but
𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥(0) 𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥
let us also add that the at time 𝑡 = 0 is the initial value renamed to .
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑡 𝑛−1

𝑑 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥
= � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖

𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛𝑥 𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥 𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡)

But remember that we have shown = 𝑡 + so let us substitute this into our .
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑡
𝑑𝑛 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥
=� � 𝑛𝑡+ � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 0 𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑡 𝑛
𝑑 𝑥 𝑡 𝑛−1
𝑑 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥
= � 𝑡𝑑𝑡 + � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 0 𝑑𝑡
𝑛
0 𝑑𝑡
𝑛−1
𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖

𝑑𝑛𝑥 𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥
Since and are constants, we can remove them from the integral.
𝑑𝑡 𝑛 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 𝑡 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥 𝑡 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥

= � 𝑡𝑑𝑡 + � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛 0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖 0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡) 1 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 2 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥

= � � 𝑡 + � � 𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖

𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑 𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡)

Now consider which is the rate at which changes.
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑑𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡)

𝑑𝑛−2
𝑥(𝑡) −
= 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡)

𝑑 𝑛−2
𝑥(𝑡) −
= lim 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 ∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡)

lim = lim ∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3

113
 𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡)
We just considered at a particular time 𝑡, so let us consider at the next instant at time
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2
𝑡 + ∆𝑡.

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + 2𝑑𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑑𝑡)

𝑑 𝑛−2
𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑑𝑡) −
= 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡)

𝑑 𝑛−2
𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) −
= lim 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 ∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡)

lim = lim ∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3
𝑑 𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡+∆𝑡)
If we substitute for ,
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡)
lim = lim ∆𝑡 + ∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3
𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡)
We just considered at a particular time 𝑡 + ∆𝑡, so let us consider at the next instant at
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2
time 𝑡 + 2∆𝑡.

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + 3𝑑𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + 2𝑑𝑡)

𝑑 𝑛−2
𝑥(𝑡 + 2𝑑𝑡) −
= 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + 3∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡)

𝑑 𝑛−2
𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡) −
= lim 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 ∆𝑡→0 ∆𝑡

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + 3∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡)

lim = lim ∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3
𝑑 𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡+2∆𝑡)
If we substitute for ,
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + 3∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 2∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡)
lim = lim ∆𝑡 + ∆𝑡 + ∆𝑡 +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3

We notice a pattern that after any 𝑛 amount of instances from time 𝑡:

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑛∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + (𝑛 − 1)∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + (𝑛 − 2)∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡)
lim = lim ∆𝑡 + ∆𝑡 + ⋯ +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3
𝑛−1
𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑛∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑖∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡)
lim = lim � � ∆𝑡� +
∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 ∆𝑡→0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3
𝑖=0

114
But instances are only instantaneous moments in time and do not compass finite amounts of time- but a
finite period of time is a combination of infinite instances. So as the 𝑛 amount of instances approaches
infinite amount of instance, we have an arbitrary period of time. Then let us now call ∆𝑡 to be some
finite time period rather than a instantaneous moment.

lim 𝑛∆𝑡 = ∆𝑡
𝑛→∞

𝑑 𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡+𝑛∆𝑡)
So if we reconsider for infinite instances or a finite moment,
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3

𝑛−1
𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑛∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑖∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡)
lim = lim � � ∆𝑡� +
∆𝑡→0
𝑛→∞
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 ∆𝑡→0
𝑛→∞
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3
𝑖=0

And if we substitute lim 𝑛∆𝑡 = ∆𝑡,

𝑛→∞

𝑛−1
𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡 + 𝑖∆𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡)
= lim � � ∆𝑡� +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 ∆𝑡→0
𝑛→∞
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3
𝑖=0

Notice that this particular infinite sum of infinitesimal parts is the concept and definition of a particular
definite integral.

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡 + ∆𝑡) 𝑡+∆𝑡 𝑛−2

𝑑 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡)
= � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3

We have said that the particular time starts at 𝑡 = 0 and our time interval is renamed from ∆𝑡 to 𝑡, but
𝑑 𝑛−3 𝑥(0) 𝑑 𝑛−3 𝑥
let us also add that the at time 𝑡 = 0 is the initial value renamed to .
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑖

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑡 𝑛−2

𝑑 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥
=� 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑖

𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡) 1 𝑑𝑛𝑥 𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥 𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥

But remember that we have shown = � � 𝑡2 +� �𝑡 + so let us substitute this
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖
𝑑 𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡)
into our .
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑡
1 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 2 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥
= � � � � 𝑡 + � � 𝑡 + � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 0 2 𝑑𝑡
𝑛 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑖

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑡
1 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 2 𝑡
𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥 𝑡 𝑛−2
𝑑 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥
= � � � 𝑡 𝑑𝑡 + � � � 𝑡𝑑𝑡 + � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 0 2 𝑑𝑡
𝑛
0 𝑑𝑡
𝑛−1
𝑖 0 𝑑𝑡
𝑛−2
𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑖

𝑑𝑛𝑥 𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥 𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥

Since and and 𝑛−2 are constants, we can remove them from the integral.
𝑑𝑡 𝑛 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑖

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡) 1 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 𝑡
2
𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥 𝑡
𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥 𝑡 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥
= � � � 𝑡 𝑑𝑡 + � � � 𝑡𝑑𝑡 + � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛 0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖 0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖 0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑖

115
 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡) 1 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 3 1 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥 2
𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥
= � � 𝑡 + � � 𝑡 + � � 𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 6 𝑑𝑡 𝑛 2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑖

If we notice this pattern that:

𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑡 𝑛−0

𝑑 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥
= � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖

𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑡 𝑛−1

𝑑 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥
= � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑡 𝑛−2

𝑑 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥
= � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑖

If we combine all of these by substitution we get:

𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑡 𝑡 𝑡 𝑛−0

𝑑 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥
= � �� �� 𝑑𝑡 + � 𝑑𝑡 + � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 0 0 0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑖

But if we consider the 𝑘𝑡ℎ element of derivative:

𝑑𝑛−𝑘 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑡 𝑛−(𝑘−1)

𝑑 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−𝑘 𝑥
= � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−𝑘 0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−(𝑘−1) 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−𝑘 𝑖

If we consider for 𝑘 = 4:

𝑑𝑛−4 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑡 𝑛−3

𝑑 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−4 𝑥
=� 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−4 0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−4 𝑖

𝑑𝑛−4 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑡
1 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 3 1 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥 2
𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−4 𝑥
= � � � � 𝑡 + � � 𝑡 + � � 𝑡 + � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−4 0 6 𝑑𝑡
𝑛 2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−4 𝑖

𝑑𝑛−4 𝑥(𝑡) 1 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 4 1 𝑑𝑛−1 𝑥 3

1 𝑑𝑛−2 𝑥 2
𝑑𝑛−3 𝑥 𝑑𝑛−4 𝑥
= � � 𝑡 + � � 𝑡 + � � 𝑡 + � � 𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−4 24 𝑑𝑡 𝑛 6 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖 2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−4 𝑖

If we consider for 𝑘 = 5:

𝑑𝑛−5 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑡 𝑛−4

𝑑 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑑𝑛−5 𝑥
= � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−5 0 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−4 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−5 𝑖

𝑑 𝑛−5 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑡
1 𝑑 𝑛 𝑥 4 1 𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥 3
1 𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥 2
𝑑 𝑛−3 𝑥 𝑑 𝑛−4 𝑥 𝑑 𝑛−5 𝑥
= � � � � 𝑡 + � � 𝑡 + � � 𝑡 + � � 𝑡 + � 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−5 0 24 𝑑𝑡
𝑛 6 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖 2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−4 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−5 𝑖

𝑑 𝑛−5 𝑥(𝑡) 1 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 5 1 𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥 4

1 𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥 3
1 𝑑 𝑛−3 𝑥 2
𝑑 𝑛−4 𝑥 𝑑 𝑛−5 𝑥
= � � 𝑡 + � � 𝑡 + � � 𝑡 + � � 𝑡 + � � 𝑡 +
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−5 120 𝑑𝑡 𝑛 24 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖 6 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖 2 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−3 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−4 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−5 𝑖

116
If we consider for 𝑘 = 𝑛: (the 0th derivative of a function is obviously just the function itself)
𝑛
1 𝑑𝑛−𝑗 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑛−𝑗
𝑥(𝑡) = � 𝑡
(𝑛 − 𝑗)! 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−𝑗 𝑖
𝑗=0

𝑑𝑛𝑥
So if you are given a time interval t where there is some motion of a particle such that is a constant,
𝑑𝑡 𝑛
𝑑 𝑛−1 𝑥 𝑑 𝑛−2 𝑥
then given all initial conditions such as , , … 𝑒𝑡𝑐 then we have derived the position of the
𝑑𝑡 𝑛−1 𝑖 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−2 𝑖
particle 𝑥(𝑡) to be:
𝑛
1 𝑑𝑛−𝑗 𝑥(𝑡) 𝑛−𝑗
𝑥(𝑡) = � 𝑡
(𝑛 − 𝑗)! 𝑑𝑡 𝑛−𝑗 𝑖
𝑗=0

God: “My Son, that is all for now. Sleep and let the cup now fully settle in its new manifest”

The Seeker: “Wait! Father I must insist on knowing!”

God: “Son- I will not pour more into the cup that cannot hold. Do not fear, that cup will grow
and I shall begin reading this story.”

The Seeker: “A mere pause in this book The Universe, but all will surely be continued. All will
surely be knowned. All will surely be truthed…………….”

PSS: …Cheesy…

117