How do you calculate the average jump height based on gravity and other forces?

Ah! Maths! *head explodes*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rubah

The g in g-force stands for gravity, you know

---

I might have been a bit unclear in my last post, the 0,165 was simply the result of 1,62 ÷ 9,81;
g₁h₁ = g₂h₂ ↔ h₁ = h₂ http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/9...2af4e0a200.png (g₂ ÷ g₁), where g₂ ÷ g₁ in this case is 0,165.
Easier calculations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rostum

Ah! Maths! *head explodes*

---

Math and physics is fun, it's not so complicated and mysterious as you might think; remember that math and physics is always as clear and simple as possible, and most mathematicians and physicists encourage simplicity. :p

By the way...

Would you agree that math should be considered as "ingredients" for understanding physics?
I had a discussion about this with a friend who's very skilled in physics the other day, and we sort of agreed that math felt like something you read in order to be able to understand physics and that physics was a more complicated version of math.
Or should they be considered two completely separate things?

Th reason I'm wondering this is because physicists are always skilled in math, but mathematicians aren't necessarily skilled in physics.

when you say "leave out gravity" that implies not using the gravitational force or any multiple of it :p

I wouldn't say necessarily that physicists are "skilled" at math; they just use math as a tool to explain physics. They don't go poking at the borders of geometry and number theory or anything, they just use regressions, probability, differential equations etc to model things they observe in the universe. They do take higher math courses than say your average art historian, but they don't usually dig any deeper into the subjects. Engineers do the same thing with physics, using physics (and by association, math) to describe things that happen in their specific fields.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rubah

when you say "leave out gravity" that implies not using the gravitational force or any multiple of it :p

I wouldn't say necessarily that physicists are "skilled" at math; they just use math as a tool to explain physics. They don't go poking at the borders of geometry and number theory or anything, they just use regressions, probability, differential equations etc to model things they observe in the universe. They do take higher math courses than say your average art historian, but they don't usually dig any deeper into the subjects. Engineers do the same thing with physics, using physics (and by association, math) to describe things that happen in their specific fields.

---

I guess you're right.
Those mathematical formulas I remember them bringing up were mostly trigonometry (for calculating spectral colours etc) and derivatives.
I don't know what the high-school math courses are called in America, but in Sweden they are split up into "Course A", "Course B" etc, where Course A is obviously the easiest one.
They might have used a few formulas from Course D as well a few times (differential- and integral calculations).