@@tuatarian6591 How about a formula for it? Is that a thing? I know that the LINEAR regression equation is already complicated, so I'm not looking forward to the quadratic one, but would you know where to find it? (Also I'm seeing this comment 10 years ago and 10 months for the reply, what the heck?!)
@pratiksrc is standard knowledge for projectiles, projectiles always follow a parabola - x^2 so quadratic dats why. its just summut you have to know for this example. ovawise its trial and error by looking at the graphs for the original data
I found this document. It might help? www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjj07DHqIrgAhVUGDQIHQMuD_0QFjALegQIChAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.farmingdale.edu%2Ffaculty%2Fsheldon-gordon%2FRecentArticles%2Fquadratic-regression-equation.doc&usg=AOvVaw1SRqApHbBqiWcHmAWbKBym edit: replaced typeo with "It" instead of "I"
Ok, found out the theoretical height as a function of time in a vacuum: -(1/2)g t^2 + Vy0 t g= gravitational acceleration Vy0= starting velocity in the y direction And Vy0=40*sin(70)=37,6 h(t)=-4,9t^2+37,6t Voila! We can solve for h=0 and get how long it takes before landing: t=7,67 Finding velocity in x direction (stays constant because the only force, gravity, works at an 90 angle): Vx=37,6 37,6m/s*7,67s=288m That ball'll travel 300 meters in a vacuum! I love MATHS!
Also there is an analytical, theoretical solution for this, which we learned in our high schol physics class (back in the day), with aerodynamics (mainly drag) neglected and gravity being the sole influence changing the speed vector of the object (golf ball) once it is travelling. That analytical solution is quadratic. If you know beforehand that the relation should be quadratic (or, very predominantly quadratic in real life), you should use quadratic regression as well.
