As you can from the processed data in the previous table. We can compare the independent variable x height to time. As we can see through the plotted graph that there linear relationship between time and height. This means that displacement is proportional to velocity. This is found using the formula and the results are summarized in the table above. At release height of 60cm the velocity is: 1.67 At release height of 90cm the velocity is: 1.93.
At release height of 120cm the velocity is: So as calculated per using the formula, we can clearly see through the results that they are proportional. This can also be seen through the inverse gradient of the graph. Therefore we can clearly state that being that displacement being constant, time is inversely proportional to velocity. With a constant of force of Gravity acting upon the ball, and as height is increased, the time taken for the ball to impact the ground will also have to increase. Due to this fact velocity has to also increase. Thus velocity is proportional to distance and inversely proportional to time taken (seconds) to impact the ground.
From the graph we see that the uncertainties of the values for time are really big. My line of best fit cannot incorporate the first and last points. Therefore we can say that there are erroneous data. This clearly suggests that there are random errors. The root of the problem lies within our reflexes. We calculated the time by using a stop watch, and watching when the ball was released and hit. To synchronize the human body and the event is very difficult in terms of accuracy. Also I some-times relied on the sound, to stop my stop-watch rather then actually visually watching it hit the ground. This causes unreliable data also due to the fact that sound travels slower then light.
To improve I could maybe get two laser gateways, which self time using a computer, when the basketball is released and when it impacts the ground. This is a much more accurate result. Due to this large uncertainty because of the synchronization, we should’ve also taken a larger number of data so we could have a more accurate overall average. And maybe, more people doing the stop-watch simultaneously which will allow us a more accurate reading.
Additionally there may also have been parallax error, caused when the ball has to be fixed to the wall at the x height. It may have been not precise. To improve we could get a flat surface and place it exactly at the height. And then place the ball above it. And when you remove it, the ball falls, pentrating the laser and starting of the counter. Giving is us all in all much more accurate results. Although, this may be expensive to encourage.