Can you help me with science please?

Question

When comparing the force that is required to climb a mountain by walking up a trail that slopes gently upward to the top,versus getting there by scaling a sheer vertical cliff face,which of the following is a TRUE statement?

a)you use more force for a given distance of movement on the walk than on the climb.

b)walking up the trail forces you to cover a greater distance,but the amount of force needed to cover a given distance will be less.

c)Scailing the vertical cliff,while dangerous,uses less force than going the "gentler" way around.

d)the distance covered is the same either way,but scaling the cliff is harder because you are working against gravity.

Answer 1

b)

This is why one prefers a trail or other inclined ramp to going straight up.

a) and c) are just the opposite of truth and d) is especially funny as just what would you be working against going up the trail if not gravity??

Answer 2

b

Think of a frictionless right triangle. If it takes force F to pull straight up. It takes Fcos(x) to pull up the slope. Fcos(x) < F.

The work done will be the same.

A mountain of height 4 and base of 3 the walk up the slope is 5. Weight F
Force F pulled up is F.
Work done is ( force times distance)=4F

Force F pulled up the slope is 4/5 F=.8F
Work done is 4/5 F * 5= 4F

Another Mountain height 3 base 4 walk up 5
Weight F
Pull straight up F
Work 3F
Pull up slope 3/5 F=.4F
Work 3/5F *5=3F

This is why we liketo go up hills with a little slope.
The first mountain in my example it takes F to go straight up. and .8F to go up the slope.
In the second mountain it takes the same F to go straight up but only .4 F to go up the slope.
Work the same

Answer 3

The best answer is B.
Work = force X distance.
Generally the work is equal, but the longer distance is times less force.

Answer 4

Using force is not what matters, it is the energy you use, which ideally is the same either way, but because of the human body, it is easier to walk the trail. B is correct.

Answer 5

"Scientists" attack Christianity and "Christians" attack technology. How can technology be used to attempt non-repeatable phenomena. Did "guy" exist 7,000 years in the past? It relies upon on the sort you define "guy." in case you define "guy" as somebody who can checklist historic past, the respond could desire to be "no." whilst i became into attending college, a protracted time in the past, C-14 dating became into talked approximately as an "absolute" dating technique and constrained to 50,000 years in the past. Now that's seen a relative dating device. It has alway been seen as such via physicists and extends previous 60,000 years. C14 is created via bombarding the nitrogen unfastened on the suited of the ambience with cosmic capability. If there is far less unfastened nitrogen, there is far less C14 created. much less C14 in an merchandise shows an older age. technology does not attack something. the 2d it does, it ceases to be technology. Scientists who take factors like that turns into monks of "technology" somewhat than observers of experiments and technology is all approximately repeatable technology. that's the weak spot of all dating platforms. no person has ever examined them for 2 hundred,000 years... or maybe 60,000 years. the theory that the forces that govern those platforms are static is devoid of evidence. Even the belief of time has its limits. devoid of mass/gravity, time does not exist, in accordance ot Steven Hawkings. yet, then, the Biblical dating is likewise in line with assumptions via some nineteenth century bishop. How long is an afternoon if the earth does not rotate in terms of the solar... or if there's no solar. Then there is the topic of randomness. If a pail of ice by surprise began to boil, might that's a miracle or an accident of risk? technology might say it became into an accident of risk in all probability basically to ensue as quickly as in 1000000000000 trillion buckets of ice. faster or later, that this is risk and that this is supernatural attain a nexus.

Answer 6

Are you clear on the definitions of force, energy, and work?