Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The general notion might be from physics, but I am very much interested in the math core of the problem. I've been trying to figure it out for a while, with little success.

The problem states:

What is the height from which an object was dropped if it travelled the last $x$ units of distance in $t_x$ units of time?

Specific values and units are not important. It's just a thought problem, for the sake of it. So, we don't have any literals, but what we do have is:

The total height would be $h_0$ and total time would be $t_0$. The equation for the height can be obtained as an indefinite integration of the function $v(t)$ or through more common channels which do the same thing.

$h_0 = \frac{gt_0^2}{2}$ (1)

Right, that much is clear. This much is also true:

$h_0 = h + x$ (2)

$t_0 = t + t_x$ (3)

$h = \frac{gt^2}{2}$

Which enables us to restate the equation (1) as:

$h+x= \frac{g}{2}(t+t_x)^2$

Now, we know the values of $x$ and $t_x$ and the value of gravitational acceleration, $g= ~9.80665$ $m/s^2$

All that remains is $h$ and $t$ and I just can't express it, everything I try to do doesn't give me an insight into their values. Is the system of equations under-constrained? I would really appreciate some insight, even if it is just to show the error of my ways.

So, the point of all this is, how can I obtain the original height function just from knowing two facts, the length traveled and the time it took to do it.

Can a function be reconstructed? And how would one go about doing it? Without succumbing to averaging the end velocity (stating $x/t_x$) and then figuring out how it "decayed" backwards in time, therefore reaching an approximation of the height.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted




$$h+x=\frac g2(t+t_x)^2$$


$$x=gtt_x+\frac g2t_x^2\;.$$

You can solve this for $t$ and then determine all the other variables from that.

share|cite|improve this answer
Actually, that's a brilliant approach. Both sides are downsized by an equal value (as inferred by = ) and solved for a target variable. Thank you. – UnfoLimited Mar 11 '12 at 18:42
But, if I may ask, why does this work and substitution doesn't? I tend to zero out the targeted variables when I use $h = gt^2/2$ – UnfoLimited Mar 11 '12 at 18:45
And isn't $\frac{g}{2}t_x^2$ the same as x? – UnfoLimited Mar 11 '12 at 18:58
a) Subsitution works just as well; you can substitute $h$ from $h=gt^2/2$ and then cancel $gt^2/2$ on both sides; the result is the same. b) No, $\frac{g}{2}t_x^2$ is not the same as $x$; if it were, the last equation in my answer would simplify to $gtt_x=0$, which is obviously false in general. – joriki Mar 11 '12 at 19:38

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.