Physics - February 2007

2007-02-17 23:16:39 · 6 answers · asked by king of kings 1

I've looked some equations up on google- but they aren't what I'm looking for.
My teacher told me drag is just the velocity squared.... is he right?

2007-02-17 23:12:48 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

the ball do not bounce in a cusion surface but bounces very well in hard surface. please tell me good scientific reason behind this, make sure that it is understandable to all.

2007-02-17 23:04:14 · 12 answers · asked by krithika r 1

2007-02-17 23:00:06 · 3 answers · asked by ramu r 1

Two small blocks A and B have masses 0.36kg and 0.32kg respectively. Block B is stationary on an ice rink 17m from a boundry wall. Block A is moving at 8ms-1 at right angles to the boundry wall when it strikes B. Block A continues in the same direction, and its speed immediately after the collision is 2.4ms-1.

a) Find the speed with which B starts to move?

b) Given that B moves with constant retardation, and reaches the boundry wall with speed 5.6ms-1, find the coefficient of friction between B and the surface of the ice?

Please show all your working out. Thank you

2007-02-17 22:14:54 · 3 answers · asked by Leonidus 2

2007-02-17 21:05:18 · 4 answers · asked by Sm1l3y 2

2007-02-17 21:03:22 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-17 21:03:05 · 3 answers · asked by ibid 3

2007-02-17 20:58:49 · 67 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-17 20:44:41 · 6 answers · asked by maxamed m 1

When we talk about the result of a particular event, we only put forward our opinion on the possibility of the most probable result. But we are never exactly 100% sure on the occurrence of our opinion, are we? For example, if we agree with the statement, “A dog will NEVER be able to learn physics”, we are only posting our opinion on it, about which we are 99.95 % certain (say), but not 100% certain. In fact, I don’t think it will ever be possible for us to be absolutely 100% certain about the occurrence of a particular event, because the Theory of Everything, as it is (or rather, would be) called, which, if stated, would take care of ALL the Sciences, has not been formulated yet.

As another ‘physical’ example, we can also never be 100% sure when we say, “The velocity of this body is 43.784 m/s”; we can only be sure to a certain extent, say 99.998%, beyond which it is not possible to ascertain the velocity. And this is not because of experimental errors, or errors in measurement, etc; in fact, this is an inherent property of ANY event that we can never predict or measure it with exactly 100% accuracy. So, words like “exact, “precise”, absolute”, etc lose their significance in the realm of this thought & discussion. In that case, can we postulate a General Principle of Uncertainty, which would say, “It is impossible to determine the occurrence of any event with absolute certainty, unless it is a definition.” ? I use the word ‘definition’ ‘coz if we define an event, it has got to be 100% certain. For example, when we say, “A meter has 100 centimeters”, we are exactly 100% certain about its validity, as a meter is defined that way. But we are not 100% sure about the validity of the statement, “He has walked 100 meters today.”

Hope you understand what I mean? Any comment(s), criticism & correction (in case I’m wrong somewhere) are welcome.

2007-02-17 20:12:02 · 7 answers · asked by Kristada 2

When we talk about the result of a particular event, we only put forward our opinion on the possibility of the most probable result. But we are never exactly 100% sure on the occurrence of our opinion, are we? For example, if we agree with the statement, “A dog will NEVER be able to learn physics”, we are only posting our opinion on it, about which we are 99.95 % certain (say), but not 100% certain. In fact, I don’t think it will ever be possible for us to be absolutely 100% certain about the occurrence of a particular event, because the Theory of Everything, as it is (or rather, would be) called, which, if stated, would take care of ALL the Sciences, has not been formulated yet.

As another ‘physical’ example, we can also never be 100% sure when we say, “The velocity of this body is 43.784 m/s”; we can only be sure to a certain extent, say 99.998%, beyond which it is not possible to ascertain the velocity. And this is not because of experimental errors, or errors in measurement, etc; in fact, this is an inherent property of ANY event that we can never predict or measure it with exactly 100% accuracy. So, words like “exact, “precise”, absolute”, etc lose their significance in the realm of this thought & discussion. In that case, can we postulate a General Principle of Uncertainty, which would say, “It is impossible to determine the occurrence of any event with absolute certainty, unless it is a definition.” ? I use the word ‘definition’ ‘coz if we define an event, it has got to be 100% certain. For example, when we say, “A meter has 100 centimeters”, we are exactly 100% certain about its validity, as a meter is defined that way. But we are not 100% sure about the validity of the statement, “He has walked 100 meters today.”

Hope you understand what I mean? Any comment(s), criticism & correction (in case I’m wrong somewhere) are welcome.

2007-02-17 20:10:16 · 3 answers · asked by Kristada 2

how long in meters

2007-02-17 19:10:44 · 5 answers · asked by bob h 1

Do not tell keep a very power full magnet and elecric feild it deviates

2007-02-17 19:07:33 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-17 18:40:29 · 4 answers · asked by Yasmin G 1

2007-02-17 18:39:58 · 1 answers · asked by Yasmin G 1

2007-02-17 18:03:21 · 1 answers · asked by GEORGE P 1

Like in nanotechnology atoms can be programmed , can a photon be programmed?

2007-02-17 17:58:43 · 6 answers · asked by rajesh bhowmick 2

Has the Quantum entanglement been proven experimentally, where it has been shown the time to reverse and effect precedes cause?

2007-02-17 17:55:34 · 1 answers · asked by Aedan 1

dose the color chang but the laser beem keeps on going on like normal

2007-02-17 17:50:42 · 4 answers · asked by twocenst 3

iar molicuals , ive seen that they can sen sound like a laser beam you can not hear it unles u cross it path with your ear

2007-02-17 17:45:34 · 4 answers · asked by twocenst 3

ive seen there diong well on the clokeing its being done what a bout force fiealds

2007-02-17 17:40:55 · 3 answers · asked by twocenst 3

if there is a beginning to time, then what before that, and before that, and so on.

if there is a beginning to space, then what was outside that and so forth.

there can't be a beginning, because there is always something preceding that right?

2007-02-17 17:38:45 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-02-17 17:29:41 · 8 answers · asked by fred 1

If a frictionless car on tracks descends into the hole by Earth's gravity from location A and comes out at location B, how long did it take to make the transit? Assume that density of the Earth's core is uniform.

2007-02-17 17:25:59 · 14 answers · asked by Scythian1950 7

What about those that give an answer without bothering to read the question?

2007-02-17 17:15:06 · 8 answers · asked by Scythian1950 7

there must be somthing mabe anti light

2007-02-17 17:03:19 · 11 answers · asked by twocenst 3

for a parachute falling to ground, does friction act parallel to parachute's direction of fall or opposite to direction of motion of parachute.

2007-02-17 16:29:02 · 6 answers · asked by king of kings 2

What are some of the benefits/dangers of nuclear engery in our society, mainly focusing on nuclear bombs. Please give detailed answers and some physics lingo too. thanks guys!

2007-02-17 16:02:44 · 4 answers · asked by missy2589 2

Im confused

2007-02-17 15:42:27 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous