• ### List any 5 examples of inertia from daily life?

8 answers · 1 week ago
• ### Why doesn’t Trump ask Putin about Uranium One?

He clearly trusts Putin. Why not just ask?
He clearly trusts Putin. Why not just ask?
4 answers · 5 days ago
• ### Did Albert Einstein ever drink a coke during his life?

Best answer: i see that i'm no einstein, but drinking cokes does not cause diabetes or obesity, not even in those with hereditary genetic dispositions.

check biological sciences.
Best answer: i see that i'm no einstein, but drinking cokes does not cause diabetes or obesity, not even in those with hereditary genetic dispositions.

check biological sciences.
5 answers · 6 days ago
• ### Is the future going to occur no matter what?

Best answer: Yeah, that's kind of how time works
Best answer: Yeah, that's kind of how time works
6 answers · 6 days ago
• ### What would happen, if the velocity would be higher, than orbital velocity?

Best answer: As long as the velocity is less than escape velocity then the initial direction of motion depends on the direction of the added velocity. However the total kinetic energy has increased. So at some point the object will get further from the central body. At this point the gravitational potential has... show more
Best answer: As long as the velocity is less than escape velocity then the initial direction of motion depends on the direction of the added velocity.
However the total kinetic energy has increased.
So at some point the object will get further from the central body.
At this point the gravitational potential has "absorbed" the extra kinetic.
Now the gravitational force is greater than the required centripetal force and the body falls toward the planet.
But this increases the speed. So half a cycle later the body is at its closest point.
It has a high kinetic energy and a high speed so that the required centripetal force is greater than the gravitational force.

The body once more goes outward.

This is actually what all real orbits are. They are an ellipse. Where at the distance R they have too much kinetic energy to have a circular orbit.
So they orbit between a minimum of r1 to a maximum of r2.

You can consider it in two ways. One way is that you have added SHM on top of the circle.
The better way is to realize that SHM and circular motion are both special cases of the general motion which is an ellipse.
( shm is an ellipse with a width of zero and a circle is an ellipse with both axes equal. )
5 answers · 5 days ago
• ### Simple physics question? f=ma?

ok this isn't for homework or anything, just curiousity so force = mass * acceleration but imagine that a car is going with the velocity of 60 mph (with no acceleration), meaning force = mass*0=0 why is it that if the car hits a wall, it exerts some type of force to damage the wall? what am i missing? thanks
ok this isn't for homework or anything, just curiousity so force = mass * acceleration but imagine that a car is going with the velocity of 60 mph (with no acceleration), meaning force = mass*0=0 why is it that if the car hits a wall, it exerts some type of force to damage the wall? what am i missing? thanks
5 answers · 5 days ago
• ### Is it certain that matter is non-deterministic on a quantum scale?

Does the present understanding of quantum mechanics conclusively demonstrate that subatomic particles actually behave probabilistically? Or could it be the case that their behavior is as deterministic as billiard balls, but much more exotic, and at present the best math we have to describe them is probabilistic? It... show more
Does the present understanding of quantum mechanics conclusively demonstrate that subatomic particles actually behave probabilistically? Or could it be the case that their behavior is as deterministic as billiard balls, but much more exotic, and at present the best math we have to describe them is probabilistic? It is my understanding that classical mechanics is deterministic, I can understand that on a smaller scale things might be quite different, but I don't get how non-determined particles could give rise to fully determined objects. Do we have good reason to believe that the present models of quantum behavior are accurate and not merely useful? Obviously the men and women who came up with the models had incredible minds, and achieved similarly incredible things, this is in no way an attempt to call in to question their competence or worth. And I know next to nothing about physics, my apologies if this is a stupid question.
5 answers · 6 days ago
• ### Explain simple pendulum?

4 answers · 6 days ago
• ### Does an electron look like a sphere?

Best answer: You would not "see" a ball. The actual structure of an atom cannot be known. We have models. One model suggests that it is an infinitely small point. A different model suggests that the electron itself is a smear, existing over an area of space. The second model is better at explaining quantum... show more
Best answer: You would not "see" a ball.
The actual structure of an atom cannot be known.

We have models.
One model suggests that it is an infinitely small point.
A different model suggests that the electron itself is a smear, existing over an area of space.
The second model is better at explaining quantum tunneling.

If it is a smear then imagine it to be sort of transparent. Where it isn't solid at all. But something that doesn't really fully exist anywhere.

Alternatively if it was a point which has some definite position at some instant, then if you could "see" at some instant you couldn't see it at all.
A point is infinitely small so it could never be seen.

You might see manifests of it such as an electric field. But not the electron itself.

To be able to see a spherical electron would require you to abandon all known models of the electron. In essence giving it a definite physical size with a clear "boundary" of some type.
We have nothing that suggests this might be true.
5 answers · 1 week ago
• ### If there was a tube with water sealed into it, hanging vertically and you released a small ball into the tube, would it float to the top?

Best answer: Water is incompressible. If you don't let some water out, or if the tube is not flexible, then it is impossible to put anything else in. Assuming that you have released sufficient water so that the ball actually fits into the tube then it displaces water. Archimedes pointed out that for the ball to go up... show more
Best answer: Water is incompressible. If you don't let some water out, or if the tube is not flexible, then it is impossible to put anything else in.

Assuming that you have released sufficient water so that the ball actually fits into the tube then it displaces water.
Archimedes pointed out that for the ball to go up water must go down. Easy.
Which means that if the weight of the ball is LESS than the weight of the water that it displaces then the ball goes up and the water goes down.

Of course if the DENSITY of the ball is greater than that of the water then the ball goes down and the water goes up.
This is called "siinking".

All of this happens whether in a sealed tube or in the open ocean.
7 answers · 1 week ago
• ### Would you use a teleportation device that destroyed you and reassembled you?

Would you use a teleportation device that instantaneously destroyed you in one location and reassembled you perfectly (with different atomic particles) in another location?
Would you use a teleportation device that instantaneously destroyed you in one location and reassembled you perfectly (with different atomic particles) in another location?
5 answers · 1 week ago
• ### Help with physics please?

A car starts from rest, then accelerates at 1.20 m/s^2 for 7.00 s. It hits the breaks, slowing t a stop at a rate of -4.25 m/s^2. What is the total distance traveled?
A car starts from rest, then accelerates at 1.20 m/s^2 for 7.00 s. It hits the breaks, slowing t a stop at a rate of -4.25 m/s^2. What is the total distance traveled?
5 answers · 1 week ago

A 93.4 kg cross country skier on snow has mu = 0.0995. With how much force must he push to accelerate at 0.550 m/s^2?
A 93.4 kg cross country skier on snow has mu = 0.0995. With how much force must he push to accelerate at 0.550 m/s^2?
4 answers · 1 week ago
• ### What would happen to a black hole if there were no space around it?

Say all the black holes merged together near the end of the universe and space-Time fell back into it through some energy loss event, what would happen to the black hole?
Say all the black holes merged together near the end of the universe and space-Time fell back into it through some energy loss event, what would happen to the black hole?
20 answers · 2 weeks ago
• ### Physics 11 question!! pls help (Kinematics)?

Best answer: You need to set your origin and positive direction and then stick with it throughout the problem You state that the positive direction is toward the hole. It makes sense that the origin should be at the initial position of the golf ball as it starts rolling. In this reference frame, the initial velocity is... show more
Best answer: You need to set your origin and positive direction and then stick with it throughout the problem

You state that the positive direction is toward the hole.
It makes sense that the origin should be at the initial position of the golf ball as it starts rolling.

In this reference frame, the initial velocity is positive and the acceleration is towards the origin or in the negative direction

v = u + at
v = 2.0 + (-0.5)(2.0)
v = 1.0 m/s

I hope this helps.
Please remember to vote a "Best Answer" from among your results. It s good karma as it helps keep the exchange in balance.
5 answers · 1 week ago

Best answer: This problem does not say the car’s final velocity. To solve this problem, I will have to assume that the car’s final velocity is not 0 m/s. Since we know the initial velocity, distance, and the acceleration, we can use the following equation to determine the car’s final velocity. vf^2 = vi^2 + 2 * a * d vf^2 =... show more
Best answer: This problem does not say the car’s final velocity. To solve this problem, I will have to assume that the car’s final velocity is not 0 m/s. Since we know the initial velocity, distance, and the acceleration, we can use the following equation to determine the car’s final velocity.

vf^2 = vi^2 + 2 * a * d
vf^2 = 25.5^2 + 2 * -2.40 * 88.4
vf = √210.72

The final velocity is approximately 14.5 m/s. Let’s use the following equation to determine the time for car’s velocity to decrease from 25.5 m/s to approximately 14.5 m/s with an acceleration of -2.40 m/s.

vf = vi + a * t
√210.72 = 25.5 + -2.40 * t
t = (25.5 – √210.72) ÷ 2.40

The time is approximately 4.6 seconds. Let’s assume the final velocity is 0 m/s. Let’s use the equation above to determine the time.

0 = 25.5 + -2.40 * t
t = 25.5 ÷ 2.40 = 10.625 seconds

Let’s use the equation above to determine the total distance.

d = ½ * (vi + vf) * t, vf = 0
d = ½ * 25.5 * 10.625 = 134.46875 meters

Since this is more than 88.4 meters, my assumption that the final velocity was not 0 m/s was correct. I hope this is helpful for you.
4 answers · 1 week ago
• ### Can someone explain to me the quantum mechanics analogy in the photo from my textbook that I attached to this question?

Best answer: The analogy is a poor one.

A fan is 'classical': you can find the position and speed of a blade as accurately as you want. You are only limited by the precision of your equipment.

The same is *not* true of an electron in an atom (as expressed byHeisenberg’s uncertainty principle).
Best answer: The analogy is a poor one.

A fan is 'classical': you can find the position and speed of a blade as accurately as you want. You are only limited by the precision of your equipment.

The same is *not* true of an electron in an atom (as expressed byHeisenberg’s uncertainty principle).
8 answers · 2 weeks ago
• ### What is its orbital period in years?

An asteroid orbits the sun (mass = 1.99 x 10^30 kg) at a distance of 3.90 x 10^11 m. What is its orbital period (in years?)
An asteroid orbits the sun (mass = 1.99 x 10^30 kg) at a distance of 3.90 x 10^11 m. What is its orbital period (in years?)
3 answers · 1 week ago
• ### If the big bang was created out of two particles smaller than atoms, then how come the LHC is safe?

Best answer: The big bang was not created by two particles. It was the creation and expansion of spacetime itself.
The LHC does not smash particles with energy higher than cosmic rays that hit the atmosphere all the time. The LHC just collides particles in a controlled way near detecters used to analyze them.
Best answer: The big bang was not created by two particles. It was the creation and expansion of spacetime itself.
The LHC does not smash particles with energy higher than cosmic rays that hit the atmosphere all the time. The LHC just collides particles in a controlled way near detecters used to analyze them.
11 answers · 2 weeks ago