He has a blanket and a stuffed bunny, but he doesn't mind sleeping without them.
I read everywhere that having a comfort object helps baby sleep better, especially in unfamiliar places.
Should I try to make him pick one?My son is 7 months old and doesn't seem to have a comfort object. Is it important to have one?
Well, it's very different for each baby, some have are comfort object and are completely dependent on knowing where it is and having it at all times. Some have one, but aren't completely dependent, usually used for sleeping during a storm or when they have a toothache.
Then, there are the ones like your baby who don't need one at all. That usually means that they are either going to find one later on, or just go through their baby years without one, which is good in some ways. You'll never have to worry about them dragging something around and losing it, or being dependent on something childish at a much older age.
My toddler little sister just got over her blankie, and for that I am grateful. I was tired of helping my mom find it and washing it everyday.
Congradulations on your baby! And good luck.My son is 7 months old and doesn't seem to have a comfort object. Is it important to have one?
If he doesn't have a comfort object, he doesn't need one- My daughter has no specific item that she uses for comfort, she will randomly ';need'; a baby doll or a book and once she went into bed holding a cracker that I couldn't get her to give up *shrugs* it is certainly easier to NOT have a lovey that they need, you don't have to worry about constantly finding it wherever you go.
The lovey situation is one where YOU will end up the keeper of this very important object and who needs all that stress on top of all of the other things you have to keep up with when you have a small child?
My daughter is very attached to me, just like I like it- 16 months is still a baby and she still needs her mama- I will let her spend the night with a grandma occasionally, and I do make sure to tell her what is going on and sometimes manipulate the situation so that I am not leaving just as she is getting tired- she's always okay-
When she was small, sometimes I would sleep with an animal or a recieving blanket under the pillow so that if she missed me while I was working she could have something soft that smelled like her mom, but I never really pushed it.
He probably has a comfort ';object'; which is either YOU or HIMSELF. Which is the way its supposed to be.
Babies aren't supposed to bond with things, they are supposed to bond with their parents, and extended family. Its just silly western selfishness that thinks its better to bond with a thing than mom, because then mom can ';get a break';.
http://www.kathydettwyler.org/detthumb.h鈥?/a>
Any time you force the child to rely on their own resources prematurely, you must expect deleterious consequences. When the child's needs are met through person-to-person interaction with its mother, you establish the primacy of social contact, and the interdependence of human beings, rather than encouraging/forcing the child to meet its needs by itself.
This may be a crude analogy, but consider this: If you have two adults, married to each other, who have all the children they want and don't want to get pregnant, but still have strong sex drives, would you consider it better if they each went into a separate room and masturbated? This would certainly allow them to ';self comfort'; and would make them independent and autonomous, so that one wouldn't have to wait until the other was ready or ';in the mood.'; Would you really consider this an improvement?
Maybe just stick to one thing and always put it in there. My son has a blanket buddy. Its part blanket part puppy that he has slept with since the day he was born. I haven't ever tried to see if he can sleep without it b/c its just always there but maybe just stick to one and always put it in there with him. Eventually I am sure it will become a comfort object.
Probably because his comfort is you! My 6 month old doesn't have blankets or teddies to go to bed with as he is fine as long as i am there for him. It is fine for children to have these security items but once they get older it is harder to break them so if your son is fine without let him be, if he suddenly does decide to choose something then thats fine but if not there's no harm in that either.
not all children have one and he really shouldnt sleep with anything in his crib anyway - SIDS, no extra blankets, pillows, stuffed animals - they often suffocate on these items. As children get older they seem to want to sleep with things more. Don't push it, it will come naturally.
My daughter is 13 months and she doesn't have one either. She has two things she sleeps with and a blanket but I don't think she would care if they were gone. I do try to keep things the same and at night we kiss them both good night. Maybe let him take the lead and eventually he'll pick one. I feel I have become her ';comfort object'; sometimes.
nope , if he don't need it , don't give it , don't fix what isn't broke . he is content and happy , look at it this way , be one less thing to break him of when he is older. of course keep things near he likes for strange places .
quit worrying about what the experts say , most experts don have kids or hardly ever home with their own , Doctor Spock leading child doc ..his own son committed suicide , trust your instincts
Aren't you his comfort object? Or does he have a passy?
I crocheted blankets for each of our kids, and it was MY comfort object more than it was theirs. I couldn't bear for them to sleep without it....they didn't care.
No real sleeping problems here!
Do you co-sleep?
My 8 month old doesn't have any one thing that she is particularly attached to either - other than ME.
If they can get by without a strong attachment to something that can become worn out or lost, then all the better. Right?
no...absolutely not...if he doesn't need one - that's because he is a happy, contented little baby without one - good for you!
p.s. is that a photo of him? - aww...he is a little beauty..you must be proud!!
No, he is self-comforting then. My second had her thumb and my last one didn't pick up anything until about 6 months ago and she is 5. The other 2 didn't have anything at all.
The fact your son dose not need something to comfort him means he is one happy little bunny! You should be proud Hun your doing something right run with it !....
Most babies use a comfort object because they need security...my baby would suck her thumb, but ever since starting day care, she's stopped sucking it!!
Don't make him choose one, just let him be - he's happy.
My son turns one next Sunday and he doesn't have a comfort object. I'm guessing that's a good thing. He's happy and content so I'm not going to worry about it.
No if he want's one he will find it himself. besides if he is sleeping without one why bother. it will cause chaos if he then loses it.
no it is importnant to have one, if they are happy wihtout then its not much of a problem, my son some nights likes his teddy but others not, howvere his dummy seems to be his comfort!
i wouldn't get him attached to something if i were you, then he won't be able to do anything without it!
I don't think what you read is necessarily true for all babies..bc my son of 7months also doesn't have one.
dont make him have 1 if hes happy..
my yougnest dont have 1 (9 months)
but my oldest...wont let his blanket go, cant even wash it reguarly...
if he sleeps fine without one, dont push him to have one.
he's obviously a very content baby
well maybe he just doesn't like sleeping with objects
Sunday, December 27, 2009
What is the nearest green object that is nearest to the nearest blue object?
Think hard people.What is the nearest green object that is nearest to the nearest blue object?
I have a bottle of Garnier Fructis hairspray next to a blue pen, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
Y!A's color scheme is basically green and blue buttons/links.What is the nearest green object that is nearest to the nearest blue object?
the closest blue object is a boa, and the closest green object to that is a pillow.
so a pillow.
Well the nearest blue thing is my braces and the nearest green thing to my braces is my shirt which is green.
Hand Sanitizer. lol. =]
My underwear. Underwear = green. Jeans = blue
Ta-Da!
A marker, I was coloring earlier :)
the earth
A piece of paper.
coffee cup is blue
cd case is green
my bracelets
this box of tissues :)
my water bottle and its label x)
I have a bottle of Garnier Fructis hairspray next to a blue pen, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
Y!A's color scheme is basically green and blue buttons/links.What is the nearest green object that is nearest to the nearest blue object?
the closest blue object is a boa, and the closest green object to that is a pillow.
so a pillow.
Well the nearest blue thing is my braces and the nearest green thing to my braces is my shirt which is green.
Hand Sanitizer. lol. =]
My underwear. Underwear = green. Jeans = blue
Ta-Da!
A marker, I was coloring earlier :)
the earth
A piece of paper.
coffee cup is blue
cd case is green
my bracelets
this box of tissues :)
my water bottle and its label x)
Christians would you object to the genetic modification of offspring?
Would you genetically modify your offspring, so that they don't get cancer, or other hereditary diseases. Or is this tampering with ';original sin';?? what are you ';moral'; reasons against this?Christians would you object to the genetic modification of offspring?
if you read Exodus chapters 7 %26amp; 8 you will read about the plagues of egypt that were directed towards the Egyptian Gods. In the Beginning was the serpent and the magicians could throw down their rod and they became serpents also (7:11), next the river became blood-the magicians created blood also (7:22), the frogs (8.7) . However when moses and Aaron smote the dust and made lice-the magicians could not (8:18). Now the dust was what God formed man from (Genesis 3:19)
Man can tamper and make do with all of God's creation-but will never be able to improve on what was created from dust.Christians would you object to the genetic modification of offspring?
I'm no Christian, but I have had experience discussing this with Christians. The results are varied, stronger Christians generally believe that this is ';playing God'; and will only have bad consequences in the future, angering God and so on. Some Christians feel that God would not want us to waste what we can find out, and that if scientists discover ways to prevent cancer then God obviously wanted them to, and it is perfectly acceptable.
Yes I would object. Man corrupts and destroys everything we touch. Someone some where would in fact make a serious and dangerous mistake. We are not God.beauty treatments car oil
if you read Exodus chapters 7 %26amp; 8 you will read about the plagues of egypt that were directed towards the Egyptian Gods. In the Beginning was the serpent and the magicians could throw down their rod and they became serpents also (7:11), next the river became blood-the magicians created blood also (7:22), the frogs (8.7) . However when moses and Aaron smote the dust and made lice-the magicians could not (8:18). Now the dust was what God formed man from (Genesis 3:19)
Man can tamper and make do with all of God's creation-but will never be able to improve on what was created from dust.Christians would you object to the genetic modification of offspring?
I'm no Christian, but I have had experience discussing this with Christians. The results are varied, stronger Christians generally believe that this is ';playing God'; and will only have bad consequences in the future, angering God and so on. Some Christians feel that God would not want us to waste what we can find out, and that if scientists discover ways to prevent cancer then God obviously wanted them to, and it is perfectly acceptable.
Yes I would object. Man corrupts and destroys everything we touch. Someone some where would in fact make a serious and dangerous mistake. We are not God.
Can the centripetal Force ever do work on an object?
how do you know?
and can the normal force onan object ever do work?
W=F*costheta*dCan the centripetal Force ever do work on an object?
Centripetal force can do work. Imagine a table with a string providing the centripetal force for the object moving in a circle. Drop the string through a small hole in the table and pull on the string from below. Pulling on the string does work that increases the kinetic energy of the object.
The normal force of someone sitting on a seesaw seat as it comes down does work to lift the person on the other side of the seesaw.
and can the normal force onan object ever do work?
W=F*costheta*dCan the centripetal Force ever do work on an object?
Centripetal force can do work. Imagine a table with a string providing the centripetal force for the object moving in a circle. Drop the string through a small hole in the table and pull on the string from below. Pulling on the string does work that increases the kinetic energy of the object.
The normal force of someone sitting on a seesaw seat as it comes down does work to lift the person on the other side of the seesaw.
What's a good way to just ballpark/estimate the electric charge of a static-generating object?
We've got this machine called a ';Vandergraff generator';, and it creates static electricity. The problem is, I have no idea how much electric charge it generates, not even close. Is there a way I could get a ball park guess for it?What's a good way to just ballpark/estimate the electric charge of a static-generating object?
Hello D... Ball-parking measurements with electricity are sorta hard but just so i can say i tried ...It takes roughly 1000volts to make electricity jump from a good source to ground at 1mm . So if your standing 1 meter away and the spark jumps out to you. You just got 1000 x 1000 volts..that a million reasons to get the best answer you can from the E.....Good luck with the generator ...from the E...What's a good way to just ballpark/estimate the electric charge of a static-generating object?
Charge is capacitance times voltage.
Hello D... Ball-parking measurements with electricity are sorta hard but just so i can say i tried ...It takes roughly 1000volts to make electricity jump from a good source to ground at 1mm . So if your standing 1 meter away and the spark jumps out to you. You just got 1000 x 1000 volts..that a million reasons to get the best answer you can from the E.....Good luck with the generator ...from the E...What's a good way to just ballpark/estimate the electric charge of a static-generating object?
Charge is capacitance times voltage.
How are thermal energy and kinetic energy of an object related?
how are thermal energy and kinetic energy of an object related?How are thermal energy and kinetic energy of an object related?
The thermal energy of an object consists of the total kinetic energy of all its atoms and molecules. It is a form of energy related to heat and temperature. Thermal energy can be created internally with chemical, nuclear and electrical reactions. It can also be created or increased from external effects, such as mechanical motion, radiation and thermal conduction.
The thermal energy of an object consists of the total kinetic energy of all its atoms and molecules. It is a form of energy related to heat and temperature. Thermal energy can be created internally with chemical, nuclear and electrical reactions. It can also be created or increased from external effects, such as mechanical motion, radiation and thermal conduction.
What kind of effect would you see if an object (with a light source) was surrounded by a mirrored sphere?
Also, if a pulse of light was released (this time with no object) inside a closed mirrored sphere - and no energy was lost through heat, would the light remain indefinitely - evenly spread throughout the sphere ?
(If so, then this effectively means that if the light were to stay constantly on, the brightness inside the enclosed mirrored sphere would increase infinitely!!).What kind of effect would you see if an object (with a light source) was surrounded by a mirrored sphere?
Ideally, the radiation field inside a highly internally reflecting closed container containing a small light source will isotropize to the power density and spectrum of the source due to multiple internal reflections. Beyond this, the source would necessarily absorb energy faster than it was emitted, resulting in no further net energy input. Such a container is called a holraum.What kind of effect would you see if an object (with a light source) was surrounded by a mirrored sphere?
it would not get brighter at all because you would not see the light.. even if sum how you got in there with out interfering with the light you wouldn't see it because the only way to see it is to interfere with the light.. the light would just bounce back and fourth infinitely.
Think of it as in space when your in space and you look out to the side an infinite amount of light rays are passing there but you do not see them because they are not coming your way. so it would actually be dark in there.. pitch black.. except there would be light rays bouncing and bouncing with no end to hit to light up the area.
(If so, then this effectively means that if the light were to stay constantly on, the brightness inside the enclosed mirrored sphere would increase infinitely!!).What kind of effect would you see if an object (with a light source) was surrounded by a mirrored sphere?
Ideally, the radiation field inside a highly internally reflecting closed container containing a small light source will isotropize to the power density and spectrum of the source due to multiple internal reflections. Beyond this, the source would necessarily absorb energy faster than it was emitted, resulting in no further net energy input. Such a container is called a holraum.What kind of effect would you see if an object (with a light source) was surrounded by a mirrored sphere?
it would not get brighter at all because you would not see the light.. even if sum how you got in there with out interfering with the light you wouldn't see it because the only way to see it is to interfere with the light.. the light would just bounce back and fourth infinitely.
Think of it as in space when your in space and you look out to the side an infinite amount of light rays are passing there but you do not see them because they are not coming your way. so it would actually be dark in there.. pitch black.. except there would be light rays bouncing and bouncing with no end to hit to light up the area.
Is their any object that is absolutely weightless, but does not float?
I'm thinking an inflated balloon, but then again that thing does have a little bit of weight to it.Is their any object that is absolutely weightless, but does not float?
Nothing is weightless. You should put some nothing in a pool and see if it sinks.Is their any object that is absolutely weightless, but does not float?
There is nothing that is absolutely weightless.
The way to find really light things that sink is to think about their shape.
Most really light things will float because they are lighter than water OR they ';stick'; to the surface.
Although nothing is weightless, if you can find things that don't ';stick'; easily, you can get some pretty light things to sink.
Try it, there is a lot to learn about what shapes work and what one's don't.
Hope this will get you started.
When you talk about something floating, you are talking about the equilibrium of the bouyant force to the weight of the water that is displaced by the object. The bouyany force deals with the weight of the object and the density of the material it is submerged in. If something weighed little or nothing, it would tend to float because of the bouyant force being stronger in the equilibrium. Just remember that the equation for the net forces of something floating would be...
Fnet = mg - pVg....... where m=mass of object, g= gravity (9.81), p= density of liquid, V= volume of liquid.... as you can see when you multiply the density of something ';mass/volume'; by its volume, you get the mass. This is what I was saying earlier in that you are only concerned with the weight of the water displaced. As you can see, if the weight was very little and the object still displaced a large amount of water, it would be very bouyant. If you could get and object that weighed close to nothing, it would have to displace almost no water to not float. Keep in mind that when you say it weights next to nothing, it must displace next to nothing in the liquid it is in.
It's not something being absolutely weightless, it's being in *freefall*. A ship in orbit around the planet is basically constantly falling towards the Earth, it's just that its forward momentum means it keeps missing, so carries on falling. So the things inside it are in freefall, so are weightless.
And a spaceship heading to the moon, for example, spends most of the time coasting, rather than under thrust. Because there is no acceleration, there's no force, so things are weightless.
You'd experience exactly the same effect if you were in a lift that plummeted 30 stories - you'd be weightless, unfortunately you'd soon hit the ground. In space, of course, there's less ground to hit...
A photon (particle of light)
Nothing is weightless. You should put some nothing in a pool and see if it sinks.Is their any object that is absolutely weightless, but does not float?
There is nothing that is absolutely weightless.
The way to find really light things that sink is to think about their shape.
Most really light things will float because they are lighter than water OR they ';stick'; to the surface.
Although nothing is weightless, if you can find things that don't ';stick'; easily, you can get some pretty light things to sink.
Try it, there is a lot to learn about what shapes work and what one's don't.
Hope this will get you started.
When you talk about something floating, you are talking about the equilibrium of the bouyant force to the weight of the water that is displaced by the object. The bouyany force deals with the weight of the object and the density of the material it is submerged in. If something weighed little or nothing, it would tend to float because of the bouyant force being stronger in the equilibrium. Just remember that the equation for the net forces of something floating would be...
Fnet = mg - pVg....... where m=mass of object, g= gravity (9.81), p= density of liquid, V= volume of liquid.... as you can see when you multiply the density of something ';mass/volume'; by its volume, you get the mass. This is what I was saying earlier in that you are only concerned with the weight of the water displaced. As you can see, if the weight was very little and the object still displaced a large amount of water, it would be very bouyant. If you could get and object that weighed close to nothing, it would have to displace almost no water to not float. Keep in mind that when you say it weights next to nothing, it must displace next to nothing in the liquid it is in.
It's not something being absolutely weightless, it's being in *freefall*. A ship in orbit around the planet is basically constantly falling towards the Earth, it's just that its forward momentum means it keeps missing, so carries on falling. So the things inside it are in freefall, so are weightless.
And a spaceship heading to the moon, for example, spends most of the time coasting, rather than under thrust. Because there is no acceleration, there's no force, so things are weightless.
You'd experience exactly the same effect if you were in a lift that plummeted 30 stories - you'd be weightless, unfortunately you'd soon hit the ground. In space, of course, there's less ground to hit...
A photon (particle of light)
How small an object can u see with a light microscope?
How small an object is it possible to see with a light microscope?
A. 2 micrometers
B. 200 micrometers
C. 20 micrometers
D. 0.2 micrometer
E. 2 millimeters
How small an object can u see with a light microscope?
The typical compound light microscope is capable of increasing our ability to see detail by 1000 times so that objects as small as 0.1 micrometer (um) or 100 nanometers (nm) can be seen.How small an object can u see with a light microscope?
Limitations of light microscopy lie partly in the resolution capability, which is limited by the diffraction of light. The limit of resolution is around 0.2 micrometers, so D is your answer.
The limit is half a wavelength of the light. Since visible light goes down to 400nm then half of that is 200nm which is 0.2渭mbeauty treatments car oil
A. 2 micrometers
B. 200 micrometers
C. 20 micrometers
D. 0.2 micrometer
E. 2 millimeters
How small an object can u see with a light microscope?
The typical compound light microscope is capable of increasing our ability to see detail by 1000 times so that objects as small as 0.1 micrometer (um) or 100 nanometers (nm) can be seen.How small an object can u see with a light microscope?
Limitations of light microscopy lie partly in the resolution capability, which is limited by the diffraction of light. The limit of resolution is around 0.2 micrometers, so D is your answer.
The limit is half a wavelength of the light. Since visible light goes down to 400nm then half of that is 200nm which is 0.2渭m
What do i do if my dog swallowed an object of value?
I was making cake so i decided to take my gold very valuable rings off. when I turn around i see only one ring in my 2 year-old golden retrievers mouth. she swallowed the other one. as i said before its very valuable. how can i get it back?What do i do if my dog swallowed an object of value?
watch him take his crap it will be thereWhat do i do if my dog swallowed an object of value?
follow him around for the next week or so and watch him like a hawk. If he poops, did around in it, and you will probably find the ring
Or take him to the vet, have him x-rayed, then have it surgically removed. Very expensive and dangerous
it might come out the other end or...you can take it to the vet which would be safest for the dogs stomach and stuff
you can wait for it to pass normally, or a trip to the vet will solve the problem....
wait till he poops it out watch and look in his poop even if you have to dig in his poop (sorry to be so gross but it happened to me)
follow her around and chk her poop thats all u can do unless u want to take her to vet and have them remove it by surgey.
Well, it will come out the other end. Check her stool and you should find it.
u can follow her around and wait for it to pass or u can get the dogs tummy pumped
you know wat you have to do ha ha although it may not be pleasent
watch him take his crap it will be thereWhat do i do if my dog swallowed an object of value?
follow him around for the next week or so and watch him like a hawk. If he poops, did around in it, and you will probably find the ring
Or take him to the vet, have him x-rayed, then have it surgically removed. Very expensive and dangerous
it might come out the other end or...you can take it to the vet which would be safest for the dogs stomach and stuff
you can wait for it to pass normally, or a trip to the vet will solve the problem....
wait till he poops it out watch and look in his poop even if you have to dig in his poop (sorry to be so gross but it happened to me)
follow her around and chk her poop thats all u can do unless u want to take her to vet and have them remove it by surgey.
Well, it will come out the other end. Check her stool and you should find it.
u can follow her around and wait for it to pass or u can get the dogs tummy pumped
you know wat you have to do ha ha although it may not be pleasent
Is is really second hand smoke that makes people object to smoking?
First of all, they say people are dying from second hand smoke from cigarettes. But then say we cannot get THC in us from second hand marijuana smoke. So somebody is lying!
Myself, I just think it is a nasty habit. Dropping their butts everywhere. Putting them out in their food. And its' their own inconsiderate actions that are causing them to lose their privileges.
Do you want to know the parapsychology reason? Click on my avatar and email me.Is is really second hand smoke that makes people object to smoking?
Smoking is so nasty. Smokers reek and they don't even realize it. Their cars and homes reek, too.
Then there's the fact that it causes many slow, painful deaths. My grandma died of lung cancer and my grandpa had emphysema. What an awful way to go.
And smokers litter everywhere and accidentally start fires out here in crispy California!
It's just disgusting. We should tax the heck out of tobacco like Canada does to pay for health care.Is is really second hand smoke that makes people object to smoking?
smoking is a bad and should be stopped as early as possible. be it first hand or second hand. i used to smoke casually. i remember it is all the perceptions floated in the society by advertisers and other smokers which influence your thinking at some age specially young mind when one adopts it. all the bad habits creep in our personality through the person's psychology and get rooted till he finds sufficient reason and will power to draw it away. but it is all personal habit and person smoking should care not to harm others by smoking in public places.
Second hand smoke really bothers me. I don't smoke and hate to have to smell the fumes when someone who smokes walks past me.
I used to cut hair for a living and could smell a smoker from a mile away.I don't think they really know how bad they smell since they get used to the odor.
its a control thing , people want to feel superior so pick at smokers
these non smokers who complain have ruined the social life of smokers
they said more people would go out when the smoking ban came in but its not happened pubs are closing down people who object to cigarette smoke are usually not sociable people
Smoking marijuana is not the same as smoking all the chemicals the cigarette companies add to the tobacco/nicotine mixture they sell, which is what kills firsthand and secondhand.
It's a control thing.
Myself, I just think it is a nasty habit. Dropping their butts everywhere. Putting them out in their food. And its' their own inconsiderate actions that are causing them to lose their privileges.
Do you want to know the parapsychology reason? Click on my avatar and email me.Is is really second hand smoke that makes people object to smoking?
Smoking is so nasty. Smokers reek and they don't even realize it. Their cars and homes reek, too.
Then there's the fact that it causes many slow, painful deaths. My grandma died of lung cancer and my grandpa had emphysema. What an awful way to go.
And smokers litter everywhere and accidentally start fires out here in crispy California!
It's just disgusting. We should tax the heck out of tobacco like Canada does to pay for health care.Is is really second hand smoke that makes people object to smoking?
smoking is a bad and should be stopped as early as possible. be it first hand or second hand. i used to smoke casually. i remember it is all the perceptions floated in the society by advertisers and other smokers which influence your thinking at some age specially young mind when one adopts it. all the bad habits creep in our personality through the person's psychology and get rooted till he finds sufficient reason and will power to draw it away. but it is all personal habit and person smoking should care not to harm others by smoking in public places.
Second hand smoke really bothers me. I don't smoke and hate to have to smell the fumes when someone who smokes walks past me.
I used to cut hair for a living and could smell a smoker from a mile away.I don't think they really know how bad they smell since they get used to the odor.
its a control thing , people want to feel superior so pick at smokers
these non smokers who complain have ruined the social life of smokers
they said more people would go out when the smoking ban came in but its not happened pubs are closing down people who object to cigarette smoke are usually not sociable people
Smoking marijuana is not the same as smoking all the chemicals the cigarette companies add to the tobacco/nicotine mixture they sell, which is what kills firsthand and secondhand.
It's a control thing.
What happens when an unstoppable force hits an unmovable object?
(if these forces existed)What happens when an unstoppable force hits an unmovable object?
Perfect elastic collision
Kinetic Energy and Momentum are conservedWhat happens when an unstoppable force hits an unmovable object?
well I'm assuming you mean an infinite force is applied to an unmovable object, just to get things technically right, but if you did find a way to do this, the unmovable object would be unmovable, so it would have to be capable of pushing back with infinite force at whatever is pushing on it in order to qualify as an unmovable object. This means the unmovable object stays still, and the unstoppable force continues to push against it for the rest of eternity.
You are thinking of this in the macro world, like a planet (something big) or better a black hole being attacked by some sort of radiation that is unstopable like gamma rays. The problem is that gamma rays aren't that easy to produce nor are they big enough to attack a black hole but they are nearly unstopable.
A black hole is pretty much the king of the universe. It is called a black hole because light can enter it, but the light cannot get out of it. That is some pretty high density that would cause that. Einstein needed a very dense heavenly body (the sun) to show that light bent in accordance with his predictions that relativity would effect the way light bent from the stars during an eclipse. If the sun can only bend light a couple of degrees, think how much denser a black whole is to be able to swollow light whole.
You are asking what would happen if something with an infinite stationary inertia is attacked by something that has an infinite force. Anytime you talk about infinity, you are entering a realm that is unimaginable at least to me. I have no idea what will happen.
unstoppable force is greater than any force, hence infinite.
unmovable object is more massive than any object, hence does not exist
One must conclude that neither of them exist perfectly in reality.
Nothing.
this is a PHILOSOPHICAL question, not a scientific one.
This question is not scientific becuase neitehr an unstoppable force nor an unmoveable object exist.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060828181500AAoAlNw
as u told its an unmoveable object the there will be no change to it.......the unstoppable force moves away by hitting it.....
Perfect elastic collision
Kinetic Energy and Momentum are conservedWhat happens when an unstoppable force hits an unmovable object?
well I'm assuming you mean an infinite force is applied to an unmovable object, just to get things technically right, but if you did find a way to do this, the unmovable object would be unmovable, so it would have to be capable of pushing back with infinite force at whatever is pushing on it in order to qualify as an unmovable object. This means the unmovable object stays still, and the unstoppable force continues to push against it for the rest of eternity.
You are thinking of this in the macro world, like a planet (something big) or better a black hole being attacked by some sort of radiation that is unstopable like gamma rays. The problem is that gamma rays aren't that easy to produce nor are they big enough to attack a black hole but they are nearly unstopable.
A black hole is pretty much the king of the universe. It is called a black hole because light can enter it, but the light cannot get out of it. That is some pretty high density that would cause that. Einstein needed a very dense heavenly body (the sun) to show that light bent in accordance with his predictions that relativity would effect the way light bent from the stars during an eclipse. If the sun can only bend light a couple of degrees, think how much denser a black whole is to be able to swollow light whole.
You are asking what would happen if something with an infinite stationary inertia is attacked by something that has an infinite force. Anytime you talk about infinity, you are entering a realm that is unimaginable at least to me. I have no idea what will happen.
unstoppable force is greater than any force, hence infinite.
unmovable object is more massive than any object, hence does not exist
One must conclude that neither of them exist perfectly in reality.
Nothing.
this is a PHILOSOPHICAL question, not a scientific one.
This question is not scientific becuase neitehr an unstoppable force nor an unmoveable object exist.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060828181500AAoAlNw
as u told its an unmoveable object the there will be no change to it.......the unstoppable force moves away by hitting it.....
How much would the object weigh on the moon?
An object weighs 100 lb. on the surface of the earth. How much does it weigh 4R from the surface? (5R from the center)How much would the object weigh on the moon?
at both 4R and 5R the object would be in space and therefore weightless. On the surface it would weigh approximately one third of its weight on earth.How much would the object weigh on the moon?
F = G M m / R^2
M is the mass of the planet
m is the mass of the object
R is the distance from the center of the body.
Assume mass of moon is 1/6 mass of earth.
F_earth / F_moon = M_earth / M_moon = 6.
The force ratio will always be the same at all radii from center.
at both 4R and 5R the object would be in space and therefore weightless. On the surface it would weigh approximately one third of its weight on earth.How much would the object weigh on the moon?
F = G M m / R^2
M is the mass of the planet
m is the mass of the object
R is the distance from the center of the body.
Assume mass of moon is 1/6 mass of earth.
F_earth / F_moon = M_earth / M_moon = 6.
The force ratio will always be the same at all radii from center.
Is it reasonable to assign evil intentions to an inanimate object?
Say, a gun for instance?Is it reasonable to assign evil intentions to an inanimate object?
My gun has a mind of it's own?
People kill people. People are idiots if they think an inanimate object can think and say,' Let's kill him.'
I have owned many guns and have never shot at anything or anyone for no apparent reason.
I hunt with my guns but they are there in case some one attacks me. I have used them since I was 4 years old to put food on the table, to defend our country and to protect myself and others from criminal activities.
Gun safety is in the mind and hand of the person holding the gun. The gun can not discharge without a deliberate action by the finger that is on the trigger. Most guns have a mechanical safety, but the best safety is the brain of the person holding it. Is it reasonable to assign evil intentions to an inanimate object?
Thanks again, We recieved the sama training. Recon here! Report Abuse
Objects that end life are only at the command of the master. What are the intentions of the master? If it is to end life, than the question becomes; Is ending life evil?
Your child is about to be killed by a strange man. There is a gun in your hand.
Your child is about to be killed by a bear. There is a gun in your hand.
A stranger has money that you desperately need. There is a gun in your hand.
The gun is in your mouth. Your wife left you.
The gun is just a slave to your intentions, no matter what they be.
considering the odds of dying from Firearms discharge is 1 in
452,476
and the odds of dying from
Accidental drowning and submersion 1 in 88,772
Inhalation and ingestion of other objects causing obstruction of respiratory tract, 1 in 91,340
Exposure to smoke, fire and flames, 1 in 90944
Accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances 1 in 14,017
Narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens] 1 in 29,971
It looks as if alot of evil intentions happen more by other things around the house.
http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx
this is my all time favorite though
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfObDFVnf鈥?/a>
especially Jackie mason.
Nope...not reasonable.
How about books? Books are inanimate objects yet books like, oh say, The Koran, are deemed by many to be an object that is not only evil but is an inspiration for evil.
Same with books that have titles like ';My Two Mommies';...whole lot of people point at those kind of inanimate objects and certainly would like to burn them in a big pile.
People can be soooooo silly and stupid sometimes...don't you agree?
Actually yes. There are a variety of torture devices that have no purpose other than evil..the rack, the pear, the iron mask, those coffin-looking things full of poky spikes.
Guns, however are a fact of life. It is too late to gather them all up now...and even if you did, someone somewhere knows how to make more.
As long as the bad guys have guns, the good guys need them.
People who dream about a world with no guns are simply not being realistic.
No, that's foolish. It's the people who buy guns who may be evil. Unlike a car, a gun is not necessary for anything but protection. If you *want* a gun for protection, sport or as a collectors item, you should need to prove that you're sane and not a violent criminal first.
Really doesn't make much sense, you can be harmed by any number of things that people would see as harmless. That would be like outlawing say brass bookends, fireplace tools, hammers, large wrenchs, crowbars, hot dog cooking sticks, the list goes on and on.
Does it have another use? Knives can be both a weapon and dinnerware, which is why regulations are a lot more lax on them.
If people docked their boats with nooses, that particular knot wouldn't have such serious cannotations either.
No one does that.
What they do is recognize that if you want to kill someone, a gun is an especially efficient way of doing so.
Or a 2x4? Or a rolling pin? Or a ...
OR A STEAK KNIFE, A BRICK, OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT COULD CAUSE HARM IF WIELDED JUST RIGHT.
Yes.
Take my husband, for example...
I don't hate guns... I even own a few... I hate trigger happy morons with guns-
If youre a liberal, yes
NO, or an SUV?
My gun has a mind of it's own?
People kill people. People are idiots if they think an inanimate object can think and say,' Let's kill him.'
I have owned many guns and have never shot at anything or anyone for no apparent reason.
I hunt with my guns but they are there in case some one attacks me. I have used them since I was 4 years old to put food on the table, to defend our country and to protect myself and others from criminal activities.
Gun safety is in the mind and hand of the person holding the gun. The gun can not discharge without a deliberate action by the finger that is on the trigger. Most guns have a mechanical safety, but the best safety is the brain of the person holding it. Is it reasonable to assign evil intentions to an inanimate object?
Thanks again, We recieved the sama training. Recon here! Report Abuse
Objects that end life are only at the command of the master. What are the intentions of the master? If it is to end life, than the question becomes; Is ending life evil?
Your child is about to be killed by a strange man. There is a gun in your hand.
Your child is about to be killed by a bear. There is a gun in your hand.
A stranger has money that you desperately need. There is a gun in your hand.
The gun is in your mouth. Your wife left you.
The gun is just a slave to your intentions, no matter what they be.
considering the odds of dying from Firearms discharge is 1 in
452,476
and the odds of dying from
Accidental drowning and submersion 1 in 88,772
Inhalation and ingestion of other objects causing obstruction of respiratory tract, 1 in 91,340
Exposure to smoke, fire and flames, 1 in 90944
Accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances 1 in 14,017
Narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens] 1 in 29,971
It looks as if alot of evil intentions happen more by other things around the house.
http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx
this is my all time favorite though
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfObDFVnf鈥?/a>
especially Jackie mason.
Nope...not reasonable.
How about books? Books are inanimate objects yet books like, oh say, The Koran, are deemed by many to be an object that is not only evil but is an inspiration for evil.
Same with books that have titles like ';My Two Mommies';...whole lot of people point at those kind of inanimate objects and certainly would like to burn them in a big pile.
People can be soooooo silly and stupid sometimes...don't you agree?
Actually yes. There are a variety of torture devices that have no purpose other than evil..the rack, the pear, the iron mask, those coffin-looking things full of poky spikes.
Guns, however are a fact of life. It is too late to gather them all up now...and even if you did, someone somewhere knows how to make more.
As long as the bad guys have guns, the good guys need them.
People who dream about a world with no guns are simply not being realistic.
No, that's foolish. It's the people who buy guns who may be evil. Unlike a car, a gun is not necessary for anything but protection. If you *want* a gun for protection, sport or as a collectors item, you should need to prove that you're sane and not a violent criminal first.
Really doesn't make much sense, you can be harmed by any number of things that people would see as harmless. That would be like outlawing say brass bookends, fireplace tools, hammers, large wrenchs, crowbars, hot dog cooking sticks, the list goes on and on.
Does it have another use? Knives can be both a weapon and dinnerware, which is why regulations are a lot more lax on them.
If people docked their boats with nooses, that particular knot wouldn't have such serious cannotations either.
No one does that.
What they do is recognize that if you want to kill someone, a gun is an especially efficient way of doing so.
Or a 2x4? Or a rolling pin? Or a ...
OR A STEAK KNIFE, A BRICK, OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT COULD CAUSE HARM IF WIELDED JUST RIGHT.
Yes.
Take my husband, for example...
I don't hate guns... I even own a few... I hate trigger happy morons with guns-
If youre a liberal, yes
NO, or an SUV?
What can I get for my friend, money is no object?
I really want to get him something. He has done so much for me and he doesnt even want repayment, I told him I was going to get him something and he got annoyed. I need to get him something that says thank you for what you have done, I appreciate it!
Do you have any ideas. Please, a great idea would be much appreciated. I really need to get him something, I owe him my life.What can I get for my friend, money is no object?
Being thankful mentally itself sufficient
allways help without expectation
returning materially something becomes business
when time comes, you can also help him without expectation
If still you feel you have to give him give a good bookWhat can I get for my friend, money is no object?
If money really is no object, then there are a ton of things that you could get him. If you just want to get him a material possession then a car is a great idea. However, if you just want to get him something that's really nice and says thanks so much for everything, then you could just get him something sentimental. You could get him a really nice watch with something engraved on the back like ';thank you'; ';to a great friend'; or something along those lines. You could take him on a trip somewhere. You could get him tickets to a concert or show that he really wants to see.
Since you are trying to make it something sentimental, I really like the watch idea. Watches are something most men like and the engraving will make it special. You could get him something You could get him a Fossil watch or a really expensive rolex. That's up to you. I can think of a few other ideas, but I really think that's an appropriate idea for what you are looking for. Good luck!!
Don't get him anything. For him to have helped you this much he doesn't have a desire for material possessions, instead take him on a trip to some place he has always wanted to go, or an experience he hasn't tried yet,like scuba diving or sky diving or spelunking
you need to ask him indirectly what do u want in your life?note it down .
do it really help him?,
whether it is good or bad?,
do his liking would affect your relation?
analyse these que.%26amp; then u buy him anything he loves...
AFTER ALL HE IS YOUR FRIEND!!!!
A dream vacation or a new car.
A Rolex
give him the gift of friendship and a hugbeauty treatments car oil
Do you have any ideas. Please, a great idea would be much appreciated. I really need to get him something, I owe him my life.What can I get for my friend, money is no object?
Being thankful mentally itself sufficient
allways help without expectation
returning materially something becomes business
when time comes, you can also help him without expectation
If still you feel you have to give him give a good bookWhat can I get for my friend, money is no object?
If money really is no object, then there are a ton of things that you could get him. If you just want to get him a material possession then a car is a great idea. However, if you just want to get him something that's really nice and says thanks so much for everything, then you could just get him something sentimental. You could get him a really nice watch with something engraved on the back like ';thank you'; ';to a great friend'; or something along those lines. You could take him on a trip somewhere. You could get him tickets to a concert or show that he really wants to see.
Since you are trying to make it something sentimental, I really like the watch idea. Watches are something most men like and the engraving will make it special. You could get him something You could get him a Fossil watch or a really expensive rolex. That's up to you. I can think of a few other ideas, but I really think that's an appropriate idea for what you are looking for. Good luck!!
Don't get him anything. For him to have helped you this much he doesn't have a desire for material possessions, instead take him on a trip to some place he has always wanted to go, or an experience he hasn't tried yet,like scuba diving or sky diving or spelunking
you need to ask him indirectly what do u want in your life?note it down .
do it really help him?,
whether it is good or bad?,
do his liking would affect your relation?
analyse these que.%26amp; then u buy him anything he loves...
AFTER ALL HE IS YOUR FRIEND!!!!
A dream vacation or a new car.
A Rolex
give him the gift of friendship and a hug
What path will an object released from a vertical or horizontal circular path take?
(assume that gravity applies for a vertical circular path)What path will an object released from a vertical or horizontal circular path take?
Since the centripetal force and acceleration are now gone the object will now have the horizontal component of its velocity as a constant and its vertical component will change by 9.8 m/s/s downward.
If it has zero horizontal v then the path is a vertical line.
More likely it does have some horiz. v so the path is a parabola
Since the centripetal force and acceleration are now gone the object will now have the horizontal component of its velocity as a constant and its vertical component will change by 9.8 m/s/s downward.
If it has zero horizontal v then the path is a vertical line.
More likely it does have some horiz. v so the path is a parabola
What would happen if an Irresistible Force met an Immovable Object?
Maybe the irresistible force will just bounce off the immovable object and carry on it's way...What would happen if an Irresistible Force met an Immovable Object?
well, if you want me to answer you seriously then you should know that FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS A REACTION EQUAL IN FORCE AND OPPOSITE IN DIRECTION , so the reaction is the collapse of the object if it was fragile or it may resist for a while depending on its composition . since FORCE=MASS MULTIPLIED BY ACCELERATION then the fate of the object depends on these two variables .What would happen if an Irresistible Force met an Immovable Object?
Whatever the force, whatever the object %26amp; whatever the result;
You can be sure that it would be proceeded by a flaming wheel rolling out of the wreckage.
:o)
probably one heckuva collision with debris flying everywhere, explosion, big loud ';SMASH!!!'; and probably a bunch of smoke and flames
The term is probably a COLLISION
collision NOUN 1 a motorway collision crash, accident, smash, pile-up, bump, impact; inf. prang. 2 a collision of views conflict, clash, difference, disagreement, variance, opposition. 3 take part in a military collision confrontation, encounter, skirmish.
so youve seen my wife argue.
';somethin's really gotta give'; Frank Sinatra
a battle because they are both cartoon characters nicknames
Juggernught and the Blob
respectivly
unexplainable situation
It can't happen, because the two can't exist in the same universe.
If there were an irresistable force, there could be no immovable objects, or the force would not be irresistable.
If there were an immovable object, there could be no irresistable forces, or the object would not be immovable.
One anwer would be...
The irresistible force would become an immovable object - and the immovable object would become an irresistible force - just think of what happens when a pool ball cannons into another.
This would be an example of Newton's law of the conservation of momentum.
The less interesting answer is that neither of these things could possibly exist in our universe (because both these things would require infinite mass - something whose gravitational field would destroy our universe instantly)
eventually we got marriied, but my wife still has trouble getting me to cut the grass
;-)
You should probably take this to the philosophy forum. They like discussing questions that are meaningless.
a burning wheel would come bouncing out of the wreckage :)
if you say ';Irresistible'; force, this does mean that nothing can stop it, so the ';immovable'; object will surely break into pieces! (i am sure)
remember the newton's law of motion =)
another thing, the answer will depend on the reader's point of view. If ur question goes like this: ';What would happen if an irresistible force met an immovable, invulnerable object?'; it will be harder for me to think for the answer. (lol)
well, if you want me to answer you seriously then you should know that FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS A REACTION EQUAL IN FORCE AND OPPOSITE IN DIRECTION , so the reaction is the collapse of the object if it was fragile or it may resist for a while depending on its composition . since FORCE=MASS MULTIPLIED BY ACCELERATION then the fate of the object depends on these two variables .What would happen if an Irresistible Force met an Immovable Object?
Whatever the force, whatever the object %26amp; whatever the result;
You can be sure that it would be proceeded by a flaming wheel rolling out of the wreckage.
:o)
probably one heckuva collision with debris flying everywhere, explosion, big loud ';SMASH!!!'; and probably a bunch of smoke and flames
The term is probably a COLLISION
collision NOUN 1 a motorway collision crash, accident, smash, pile-up, bump, impact; inf. prang. 2 a collision of views conflict, clash, difference, disagreement, variance, opposition. 3 take part in a military collision confrontation, encounter, skirmish.
so youve seen my wife argue.
';somethin's really gotta give'; Frank Sinatra
a battle because they are both cartoon characters nicknames
Juggernught and the Blob
respectivly
unexplainable situation
It can't happen, because the two can't exist in the same universe.
If there were an irresistable force, there could be no immovable objects, or the force would not be irresistable.
If there were an immovable object, there could be no irresistable forces, or the object would not be immovable.
One anwer would be...
The irresistible force would become an immovable object - and the immovable object would become an irresistible force - just think of what happens when a pool ball cannons into another.
This would be an example of Newton's law of the conservation of momentum.
The less interesting answer is that neither of these things could possibly exist in our universe (because both these things would require infinite mass - something whose gravitational field would destroy our universe instantly)
eventually we got marriied, but my wife still has trouble getting me to cut the grass
;-)
You should probably take this to the philosophy forum. They like discussing questions that are meaningless.
a burning wheel would come bouncing out of the wreckage :)
if you say ';Irresistible'; force, this does mean that nothing can stop it, so the ';immovable'; object will surely break into pieces! (i am sure)
remember the newton's law of motion =)
another thing, the answer will depend on the reader's point of view. If ur question goes like this: ';What would happen if an irresistible force met an immovable, invulnerable object?'; it will be harder for me to think for the answer. (lol)
The Theory of An Object that can appear at a 2 different location at the Same time, is that true?
Or is it just another theory made up by some wacky scientists?The Theory of An Object that can appear at a 2 different location at the Same time, is that true?
Smoke and mirrors - seen it at the Magic Castle plenty of times.The Theory of An Object that can appear at a 2 different location at the Same time, is that true?
as far as we know mass can not occupiy space simultaniosly other than in theory
I SEEM TO REMEMBER THAT THIS OCCURS IN SOME SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES.
Not quite. However, through a process called ';entanglement'; in quantum physics, it is possible to alter the state of a particle separated by a long distance from another, entangled particle, by merely changing the state of the other particle. Einstein called this ';spooky action at a distance'; and it was the thing that gave him the biggest headaches about quantum physics. It has, however, been observed, and is generally accepted as a property of subatomic particles.
not exactly. the potential for a subatomic particle to be in 2 places at once exists. the potential exists. but when you observe the particle, it is only ever in one place or the other.
that's quantum physics, the implications of which are not fully absorbed, that's why it can seem so weird.
Yes.
this was an original theory comprised by Neils Bohr. Which was later proven using photons in the 90's.
This is also a huge part of Quantum Physics.
Smoke and mirrors - seen it at the Magic Castle plenty of times.The Theory of An Object that can appear at a 2 different location at the Same time, is that true?
as far as we know mass can not occupiy space simultaniosly other than in theory
I SEEM TO REMEMBER THAT THIS OCCURS IN SOME SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES.
Not quite. However, through a process called ';entanglement'; in quantum physics, it is possible to alter the state of a particle separated by a long distance from another, entangled particle, by merely changing the state of the other particle. Einstein called this ';spooky action at a distance'; and it was the thing that gave him the biggest headaches about quantum physics. It has, however, been observed, and is generally accepted as a property of subatomic particles.
not exactly. the potential for a subatomic particle to be in 2 places at once exists. the potential exists. but when you observe the particle, it is only ever in one place or the other.
that's quantum physics, the implications of which are not fully absorbed, that's why it can seem so weird.
Yes.
this was an original theory comprised by Neils Bohr. Which was later proven using photons in the 90's.
This is also a huge part of Quantum Physics.
What actually happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
This gets asked about once a week, it may pay to look at previous answers.
Basically, neither unstoppable force nor an immovable object is possible. So you are asking about two impossibilities meeting.
The question is meaningless. Like asking what color is an inch.
.What actually happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
the two collide and slowly all of the available remaining energy of the universe begin to gather around this infinite collision for an infinite amount of time, they lock grip all the remaining potential energy and kinetic energy of the universe for eons gathering all galaxies that haven't burned out, all black holes, all available background radiation, they lock in embrace burning out everything and reconsuming all its energies, eventually when there is one quantum blip of force and object remaining, they call it a draw, and space time expands forever in applause in an ';empty'; universe.What actually happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
F=m*a --%26gt; a=F/m
unstoppable force means F --%26gt; infinity
immovable object means m --%26gt; infinity
so
a=infinity/infinity cannot be defined
In other words:
Both unstoppable force and immovable object can't exist in the same universe.
See http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>
The unstoppable force becomes an immovable object and vice versa.
the Manhattan project or atomic implosion trigger in other words they would shatter at the atomic level
Elastic Collision
Kinetic Energy and Momentum are both conserved
a collision of cataclysmic proportions
boom
Basically, neither unstoppable force nor an immovable object is possible. So you are asking about two impossibilities meeting.
The question is meaningless. Like asking what color is an inch.
.What actually happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
the two collide and slowly all of the available remaining energy of the universe begin to gather around this infinite collision for an infinite amount of time, they lock grip all the remaining potential energy and kinetic energy of the universe for eons gathering all galaxies that haven't burned out, all black holes, all available background radiation, they lock in embrace burning out everything and reconsuming all its energies, eventually when there is one quantum blip of force and object remaining, they call it a draw, and space time expands forever in applause in an ';empty'; universe.What actually happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
F=m*a --%26gt; a=F/m
unstoppable force means F --%26gt; infinity
immovable object means m --%26gt; infinity
so
a=infinity/infinity cannot be defined
In other words:
Both unstoppable force and immovable object can't exist in the same universe.
See http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>
The unstoppable force becomes an immovable object and vice versa.
the Manhattan project or atomic implosion trigger in other words they would shatter at the atomic level
Elastic Collision
Kinetic Energy and Momentum are both conserved
a collision of cataclysmic proportions
boom
Is a Near Earth Object likely to cause mass destruction in the forseeable future?
I need points for and against this question.Is a Near Earth Object likely to cause mass destruction in the forseeable future?
Will a near earth object cause mass destruction? Well that depends on it size, composition and how near to the earth is passes. There is one asteroid/meteorite, 'Apophis' that will pass close to the earth in 2029, and again in 2036.
Its proximity to Earth in 2029, will determine if it will collide with earth in 2036, which is considered now unlikely. However, it was predicted that if it was to pass close enough to the earth it would affect the weather system. And that earths gravity would ultimately change its course bringing it even closer or impacting with the Earth as was thought in the early predictions.Is a Near Earth Object likely to cause mass destruction in the forseeable future?
No.... But the probability is not zero...
For - The dinosaurs lost the bet
Against - Hasn't happened since.
For - Minor objects have crashed since - Arizona, Tunguska.
Against - Earth mostly water.
For - More people on Earth now
Against - We need less people - a few million people wiped out would be good.
For - What if it was you who got zapped.
Against - We need for funding to prepare...
What do you mean by ';foreseeable future'; ? This is the Astronomy and Space section, where science , not soothsaying is the method of reasoning.
there is a object like a giant asteroid that will collide with earth and cause mass destruction but it is so far away our telescopes cant see it yet so it will be in millions of years
No, there are no near earth objects in the path of the Earth's orbit in the foreseeable future.
Currently there are no Near Earth Objects on a collision course with Earth, that could END all life on Earth.
See this web site:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/
Will a near earth object cause mass destruction? Well that depends on it size, composition and how near to the earth is passes. There is one asteroid/meteorite, 'Apophis' that will pass close to the earth in 2029, and again in 2036.
Its proximity to Earth in 2029, will determine if it will collide with earth in 2036, which is considered now unlikely. However, it was predicted that if it was to pass close enough to the earth it would affect the weather system. And that earths gravity would ultimately change its course bringing it even closer or impacting with the Earth as was thought in the early predictions.Is a Near Earth Object likely to cause mass destruction in the forseeable future?
No.... But the probability is not zero...
For - The dinosaurs lost the bet
Against - Hasn't happened since.
For - Minor objects have crashed since - Arizona, Tunguska.
Against - Earth mostly water.
For - More people on Earth now
Against - We need less people - a few million people wiped out would be good.
For - What if it was you who got zapped.
Against - We need for funding to prepare...
What do you mean by ';foreseeable future'; ? This is the Astronomy and Space section, where science , not soothsaying is the method of reasoning.
there is a object like a giant asteroid that will collide with earth and cause mass destruction but it is so far away our telescopes cant see it yet so it will be in millions of years
No, there are no near earth objects in the path of the Earth's orbit in the foreseeable future.
Currently there are no Near Earth Objects on a collision course with Earth, that could END all life on Earth.
See this web site:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/
How much electric energy will be needed to operate this object for 24 hours?
The has object a resistance of 11 ohms has 150 volts applied to it.
(Answer in units of kWh.)How much electric energy will be needed to operate this object for 24 hours?
Assuming a DC circuit: use Ohm's law, I=E/R and P=I*E or I=150 Volts /11 Ohms = 13.64 Amps and Watts = 13.64 Amps * 150 Volts * 24 hours or 49,090.9 Watthours or 49.091 kWh.beauty treatments car oil
(Answer in units of kWh.)How much electric energy will be needed to operate this object for 24 hours?
Assuming a DC circuit: use Ohm's law, I=E/R and P=I*E or I=150 Volts /11 Ohms = 13.64 Amps and Watts = 13.64 Amps * 150 Volts * 24 hours or 49,090.9 Watthours or 49.091 kWh.
What color is a object is all wavelengths are absorbed?
All wavelengths are absorbed by black light.
What is the name of the poetic device where two unconnected nouns are the object of the same verb?
As for example in Larkin鈥檚 Whitsun weddings:
鈥楾he last confetti and advice are thrown鈥?br>
I have asked the English teacher and she doesn鈥檛 know!What is the name of the poetic device where two unconnected nouns are the object of the same verb?
I was just thinking about this ... the term is syllepsis ...
which is related to zeugma (from the Greek word ';yoke';)
You can read up on it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeugma
Here's the Wikipedia definition:
Syllepsis is a particular type of zeugma in which the clauses are not parallel either in meaning or grammar. The governing word may change meaning with respect to the other words it modifies. This creates a semantic incongruity which is often humorous.
And here are examples:
Here thou, great Anna! whom three realms obey,
Dost sometimes counsel take - and sometimes tea.
Alexander Pope, The Rape of the Lock
He carried a strobe light and the responsibility for the lives of his men. (Tim O'Brien, The Things They Carried)What is the name of the poetic device where two unconnected nouns are the object of the same verb?
compound subject................
鈥楾he last confetti and advice are thrown鈥?br>
I have asked the English teacher and she doesn鈥檛 know!What is the name of the poetic device where two unconnected nouns are the object of the same verb?
I was just thinking about this ... the term is syllepsis ...
which is related to zeugma (from the Greek word ';yoke';)
You can read up on it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeugma
Here's the Wikipedia definition:
Syllepsis is a particular type of zeugma in which the clauses are not parallel either in meaning or grammar. The governing word may change meaning with respect to the other words it modifies. This creates a semantic incongruity which is often humorous.
And here are examples:
Here thou, great Anna! whom three realms obey,
Dost sometimes counsel take - and sometimes tea.
Alexander Pope, The Rape of the Lock
He carried a strobe light and the responsibility for the lives of his men. (Tim O'Brien, The Things They Carried)What is the name of the poetic device where two unconnected nouns are the object of the same verb?
compound subject................
What do you do with the liquid to measure the volume of an illregular object?
pour it into a vessel with a known volume.
Or drink it, and see how fast you have to go to the bathroom.What do you do with the liquid to measure the volume of an illregular object?
';Calibrate'; it. Use a calibrated known amount of the liquid and then drop in the object in question. The displacement of the liquid will be it's volume.What do you do with the liquid to measure the volume of an illregular object?
I will fill liquid(like water) in a scaled cylinder and put that object in cylinder. The difference of where the water first time and after put an object will be the volume of object.
abotu my quetsion u just answerd yo sorry u aint gotta be a lil ****** about it thats juss wut i heard
to find the volume, pour a reasonable amount of water into a graduated cylinder, measure the water level, then place the object in. The difference is the volume of the irregular object.
Or drink it, and see how fast you have to go to the bathroom.What do you do with the liquid to measure the volume of an illregular object?
';Calibrate'; it. Use a calibrated known amount of the liquid and then drop in the object in question. The displacement of the liquid will be it's volume.What do you do with the liquid to measure the volume of an illregular object?
I will fill liquid(like water) in a scaled cylinder and put that object in cylinder. The difference of where the water first time and after put an object will be the volume of object.
abotu my quetsion u just answerd yo sorry u aint gotta be a lil ****** about it thats juss wut i heard
to find the volume, pour a reasonable amount of water into a graduated cylinder, measure the water level, then place the object in. The difference is the volume of the irregular object.
How to find the density of an object with undetermined shape?
It's a chemistry project in my uni and i need help with it.. how to answer this question.How to find the density of an object with undetermined shape?
Density is mass/volume. Find its mass by weighing it. Find its volume by immersing it in water and measuring how much water it displaces. That is its volume.
Divide mass by volume and you've got density.
P.How to find the density of an object with undetermined shape?
simply use a graduated cylinder. Water displacement method. An irregular object is placed in a glass with gradients or measurements filled with water. THe water level will rise because of the object's weight. Then get the actual water level reading(present reading) minus - the previous water level before the object was placed the difference = volume
Put it in a measuring bucket.
simple......anylising gases
Drown it in water. Can't remember the exact procedures. Basically by measuing the weight and volume of water displaced. Check physics websites or books.
A completely unscientific answer, but if I was in my kitchen or something right now and needed to figure it out... so long as it wasn't soluble I'd weigh it then immerse it in a container that allows me to read the amount that the water level rises (in volume) then use the standard D=M/V formula.
Density is mass/volume. Find its mass by weighing it. Find its volume by immersing it in water and measuring how much water it displaces. That is its volume.
Divide mass by volume and you've got density.
P.How to find the density of an object with undetermined shape?
simply use a graduated cylinder. Water displacement method. An irregular object is placed in a glass with gradients or measurements filled with water. THe water level will rise because of the object's weight. Then get the actual water level reading(present reading) minus - the previous water level before the object was placed the difference = volume
Put it in a measuring bucket.
simple......anylising gases
Drown it in water. Can't remember the exact procedures. Basically by measuing the weight and volume of water displaced. Check physics websites or books.
A completely unscientific answer, but if I was in my kitchen or something right now and needed to figure it out... so long as it wasn't soluble I'd weigh it then immerse it in a container that allows me to read the amount that the water level rises (in volume) then use the standard D=M/V formula.
Can you add heat energy to an object without increasing its temperature?
Please explain why or why not. Thank you.Can you add heat energy to an object without increasing its temperature?
Only at phase changes, solid--%26gt;liquid or liquid--%26gt;gas. At those points the heat of fusion or vaporization takes the added heat energy and changes the phase, but the temperature doesn't increase. The energy is used to overcome intra-molecular forces. At any other point, adding heat energy will cause an increase in temperature.Can you add heat energy to an object without increasing its temperature?
Yes, if you are adding energy for it to go through a phase change. For example, it takes energy for water to turn from liquid to gas, not just having it right at 100 C.
Only at phase changes, solid--%26gt;liquid or liquid--%26gt;gas. At those points the heat of fusion or vaporization takes the added heat energy and changes the phase, but the temperature doesn't increase. The energy is used to overcome intra-molecular forces. At any other point, adding heat energy will cause an increase in temperature.Can you add heat energy to an object without increasing its temperature?
Yes, if you are adding energy for it to go through a phase change. For example, it takes energy for water to turn from liquid to gas, not just having it right at 100 C.
If we double the velocity of an object what effect does it have on its kinetic energy?
If you double the height of an object, what effect does that have on potential energy?If we double the velocity of an object what effect does it have on its kinetic energy?
%26gt;The equation for kinetic energy is KE=(1/2)mv^2
m=mass is kilograms
v=velocity is meter per second
KE= kinetic energy is Joules
By doubling the velocity, the kinetic energy would be 4 times as much.
If you triple the velocity, the kinetic energy would be 9 times as much.
If your quadruple the velocity, the energy would be 16 times as much as so on...
%26gt;The equation for (gravitational) potential energy is P=mgh
m= mass is kilograms
g= free-fall acceleration
h= height in meters
P= measured in Joules
By doubling the height of an object, the potential energy would be doubled.
If you triple the height, the energy would be tripled and so on.If we double the velocity of an object what effect does it have on its kinetic energy?
=(KE)1=1/2 mass x (velocity)^2
double the velocity
(K.E)2=1/2 m (2V)^2 ==%26gt; (K.E)2= [1/2 m (2^2)V^2]= 4[1/2 mV^2]
=4(KE)1
if you double the velocity, K.E will be increased 4 times
Ke = 1/2 m v^2
2 Ke = m v^2
2 Ke / m = v^2
square root 2 Ke / M = v
so if v is doubled the Ke will be square root of 2
Pe = m g h
Pe /m g = h
so if the h is doubled then the Pe is also doubledbeauty treatments car oil
%26gt;The equation for kinetic energy is KE=(1/2)mv^2
m=mass is kilograms
v=velocity is meter per second
KE= kinetic energy is Joules
By doubling the velocity, the kinetic energy would be 4 times as much.
If you triple the velocity, the kinetic energy would be 9 times as much.
If your quadruple the velocity, the energy would be 16 times as much as so on...
%26gt;The equation for (gravitational) potential energy is P=mgh
m= mass is kilograms
g= free-fall acceleration
h= height in meters
P= measured in Joules
By doubling the height of an object, the potential energy would be doubled.
If you triple the height, the energy would be tripled and so on.If we double the velocity of an object what effect does it have on its kinetic energy?
=(KE)1=1/2 mass x (velocity)^2
double the velocity
(K.E)2=1/2 m (2V)^2 ==%26gt; (K.E)2= [1/2 m (2^2)V^2]= 4[1/2 mV^2]
=4(KE)1
if you double the velocity, K.E will be increased 4 times
Ke = 1/2 m v^2
2 Ke = m v^2
2 Ke / m = v^2
square root 2 Ke / M = v
so if v is doubled the Ke will be square root of 2
Pe = m g h
Pe /m g = h
so if the h is doubled then the Pe is also doubled
How long will it take for an object dropped from a height of 100 meters to hit the ground?
With air resistance is it 4.7 and without is it 4.5? (seconds)How long will it take for an object dropped from a height of 100 meters to hit the ground?
here's the answer without air resistance:
s = s0 + v0(t) + 1/2(a)(t^2)
s = -100 m
s0 = 0 m
v0 = 0 m/s
a = -9.8 m/s^2
-100 = 0 + 0 + 1/2(-9.8)(t^2)
-100 = -4.9(t^2)
t = SQRT(-100/-4.9) = 4.5 seconds
You would need more information to take air resistance into account (i.e the objects drag coefficient and cross sectional area). But the time of the fall would be more than 4.5 seconds...How long will it take for an object dropped from a height of 100 meters to hit the ground?
Air resistance is highly variable depending on the object (think of a feather and a pebble with the same weight) so an answer of 4.7 seconds doesn't mean anything.
S=1/2gt^2
t^2 = 2s/g = 200/9.8 = 20
t = 4.5 seconds
here's the answer without air resistance:
s = s0 + v0(t) + 1/2(a)(t^2)
s = -100 m
s0 = 0 m
v0 = 0 m/s
a = -9.8 m/s^2
-100 = 0 + 0 + 1/2(-9.8)(t^2)
-100 = -4.9(t^2)
t = SQRT(-100/-4.9) = 4.5 seconds
You would need more information to take air resistance into account (i.e the objects drag coefficient and cross sectional area). But the time of the fall would be more than 4.5 seconds...How long will it take for an object dropped from a height of 100 meters to hit the ground?
Air resistance is highly variable depending on the object (think of a feather and a pebble with the same weight) so an answer of 4.7 seconds doesn't mean anything.
S=1/2gt^2
t^2 = 2s/g = 200/9.8 = 20
t = 4.5 seconds
How does the mass of the same object differ when using different balances?
How and why?How does the mass of the same object differ when using different balances?
Depending on the kind of scale you use, you will measure either the object's mass, which doesn't vary, or weight, which will vary if the object is measured at widely varying locations on the earth's surface or at different elevations above sea level. A spring balance or an electronic balance using a load cell will measure weight. A beam balance will compare the unknown mass with known masses and a system of levers, so truly measures mass instead of weight.How does the mass of the same object differ when using different balances?
sorry, mass never changes
mass = amount of stuff in an object
maybe u r talking about weight
Depending on the kind of scale you use, you will measure either the object's mass, which doesn't vary, or weight, which will vary if the object is measured at widely varying locations on the earth's surface or at different elevations above sea level. A spring balance or an electronic balance using a load cell will measure weight. A beam balance will compare the unknown mass with known masses and a system of levers, so truly measures mass instead of weight.How does the mass of the same object differ when using different balances?
sorry, mass never changes
mass = amount of stuff in an object
maybe u r talking about weight
How would I go about removing an object from a picture?
I have some pictures of people that I want to remove from the background. What programs could I use?How would I go about removing an object from a picture?
Photoshop.How would I go about removing an object from a picture?
base paint
I use ';Picture it'; for that.
Go to www.cpworld.com and look in their reviews of photography software and chose the one you like and can afford! Also, you can go to Google and download their free photo program ';PICASSA2'; I am not sure if you can do what you want to do with Picassa but it is a very good little program and the best thing about it it's FREE.
Good luck
Photoshop.How would I go about removing an object from a picture?
base paint
I use ';Picture it'; for that.
Go to www.cpworld.com and look in their reviews of photography software and chose the one you like and can afford! Also, you can go to Google and download their free photo program ';PICASSA2'; I am not sure if you can do what you want to do with Picassa but it is a very good little program and the best thing about it it's FREE.
Good luck
What is the maximum volume of this object?
An object has a top, side, and front view that all have a round outside border, a perfect circle of diameter = 1. What is the maximum volume this object can have?
I am talking about orthogonal views like you see in drafting.What is the maximum volume of this object?
Actually, the object is not a sphere. It is a Steinmetz solid (specifically, a tricylinder), of radius 1/2. This may be seen as follows: since the front view is a circle of radius 1/2, the object must be contained within the cylinder along the x-axis of radius 1/2. Likewise, because of the top and side views, it must be contained within the cylinders of radius 1/2 along the y and z-axes. The largest solid that fulfills all of these constraints is the intersection of these three cylinders, which is a tricylinder. The volume of this object is (16 - 8鈭?)r鲁 = (16 - 8鈭?)/8 = 2 - 鈭?. This is larger than the volume of the inscribed sphere.
Edit: Just for fun, here's a derivation of the volume of the solid. About 95% of the work is figuring out what integrals to use and justifying them, the integration itself takes about 5 seconds.
Derivation of volume: Consider the cube centered at the origin whose side length is 2/鈭? * r. Then for a point (x, y, z) in the cube, we have |x|鈮/鈭?, |y|鈮/鈭?, and |z|鈮/鈭?. Then 鈭?y虏 + z虏) 鈮?鈭?r虏/2 + r虏/2) = r, so the point is in the cylinder along the x-axis. By similar logic, it is inside the cylinder along the y-axis and the z-axis. So it is in the intersection of all three cylinders. The volume of this cube is 2鈭?r鲁, so the volume of the tricylinder is the volume of this cube plus the volume of the solid outside the cube.
Now, if (x, y, z) is outside the cube, but still in the tricylinder, then either |x|%26gt;r/鈭?, |y|%26gt;r/鈭?, or |z|%26gt;r/鈭?. Note that if |x|%26gt;r/鈭?, then since 鈭?x虏+y虏) 鈮?r, we necessarily have |y|%26lt;r/鈭?, and likewise since 鈭?x虏+z虏)鈮, we have |z|鈮/鈭?. Letting T denote the tricylinder, this implies the region {(x, y, z)鈭圱: |x|%26gt;r/鈭?} is disjoint from both {(x, y, z)鈭圱: |y|%26gt;r/鈭?} and {(x, y, z)鈭圱: |z|%26gt;r/鈭?}, and by similar logic the latter two regions are disjoint from each other. Since, by symmetry, they have the same volume, it suffices to calculate the volume of one of them and multiply it by three to find the volume of the portion of the tricylinder outside the cube. Moreover since {(x, y, z)鈭圱: |x|%26gt;r/鈭?} is the disjoint union of {(x, y, z)鈭圱: x%26gt;r/鈭?} and {(x, y, z)鈭圱: x%26lt;-r/鈭?}, and both of these regions have the same volume by symmetry, it suffices to calculate the volume of {(x, y, z)鈭圱: x%26gt;r/鈭?} and multiply it by 6.
Now, suppose (x, y, z) lies in the cross section parallel to the yz-plane at an x-coordinate greater than r/鈭?. Obviously since 鈭?x虏+y虏)鈮, we have |y|鈮も垰(r虏-x虏) and since 鈭?x虏+z虏)鈮, we have |z|鈮も垰(r虏-x虏). Further, as long as (y, z) is in the square of side length 2鈭?r虏-x虏), then |y|鈮も垰(r虏-x虏) and |z|鈮も垰(r虏-x虏), so 鈭?y虏+z虏) 鈮?鈭?2(r虏-x虏)) 鈮?鈭?2(r虏-r虏/2) = r, so (x, y, z) is in the third cylinder as well and thus in the intersection of all three cylinders. So the cross section here is a square of length 2鈭?r虏-x虏) and thus of volume 4(r虏-x虏). Thus the volume of the region {(x, y, z)鈭圱: x%26gt;r/鈭?} is:
[r/鈭?, r]鈭?(r虏-x虏) dx
4(r虏x - x鲁/3)|[r/鈭?, r]
4(r鲁 - r鲁/3) - 4(r鲁/鈭? - r鲁/(6鈭?))
8/3 r鲁 - 5鈭?/3 r鲁
Multiplying this by 6 and adding the volume of the cube yields the volume of the tricylinder:
6(8/3 r鲁 - 5鈭?/3 r鲁) + 2鈭? r虏
(16 - 8鈭?) r鲁
And we are done.What is the maximum volume of this object?
Couldn't it be infinity because the rest of the object could extend on forever as far as we know?
I think it's a sphere, so max volume = 4/3 pi r^3 where r= 1/2, so max volume = pi/6
Good Question.
It is not a sphere. It's bigger. It surface is a set of planes bent in one direction only. Spheres bend in two directions
It is a Stienmetz solid. See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SteinmetzSo鈥?/a>
The answer is .587
Happy New Year.
*******************************
Here is a good site for pictures of similar solids going up to an intersection of 200 cylinders. The more intersections, the more it is shaped like a sphere. http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/ge鈥?/a>
I am talking about orthogonal views like you see in drafting.What is the maximum volume of this object?
Actually, the object is not a sphere. It is a Steinmetz solid (specifically, a tricylinder), of radius 1/2. This may be seen as follows: since the front view is a circle of radius 1/2, the object must be contained within the cylinder along the x-axis of radius 1/2. Likewise, because of the top and side views, it must be contained within the cylinders of radius 1/2 along the y and z-axes. The largest solid that fulfills all of these constraints is the intersection of these three cylinders, which is a tricylinder. The volume of this object is (16 - 8鈭?)r鲁 = (16 - 8鈭?)/8 = 2 - 鈭?. This is larger than the volume of the inscribed sphere.
Edit: Just for fun, here's a derivation of the volume of the solid. About 95% of the work is figuring out what integrals to use and justifying them, the integration itself takes about 5 seconds.
Derivation of volume: Consider the cube centered at the origin whose side length is 2/鈭? * r. Then for a point (x, y, z) in the cube, we have |x|鈮/鈭?, |y|鈮/鈭?, and |z|鈮/鈭?. Then 鈭?y虏 + z虏) 鈮?鈭?r虏/2 + r虏/2) = r, so the point is in the cylinder along the x-axis. By similar logic, it is inside the cylinder along the y-axis and the z-axis. So it is in the intersection of all three cylinders. The volume of this cube is 2鈭?r鲁, so the volume of the tricylinder is the volume of this cube plus the volume of the solid outside the cube.
Now, if (x, y, z) is outside the cube, but still in the tricylinder, then either |x|%26gt;r/鈭?, |y|%26gt;r/鈭?, or |z|%26gt;r/鈭?. Note that if |x|%26gt;r/鈭?, then since 鈭?x虏+y虏) 鈮?r, we necessarily have |y|%26lt;r/鈭?, and likewise since 鈭?x虏+z虏)鈮, we have |z|鈮/鈭?. Letting T denote the tricylinder, this implies the region {(x, y, z)鈭圱: |x|%26gt;r/鈭?} is disjoint from both {(x, y, z)鈭圱: |y|%26gt;r/鈭?} and {(x, y, z)鈭圱: |z|%26gt;r/鈭?}, and by similar logic the latter two regions are disjoint from each other. Since, by symmetry, they have the same volume, it suffices to calculate the volume of one of them and multiply it by three to find the volume of the portion of the tricylinder outside the cube. Moreover since {(x, y, z)鈭圱: |x|%26gt;r/鈭?} is the disjoint union of {(x, y, z)鈭圱: x%26gt;r/鈭?} and {(x, y, z)鈭圱: x%26lt;-r/鈭?}, and both of these regions have the same volume by symmetry, it suffices to calculate the volume of {(x, y, z)鈭圱: x%26gt;r/鈭?} and multiply it by 6.
Now, suppose (x, y, z) lies in the cross section parallel to the yz-plane at an x-coordinate greater than r/鈭?. Obviously since 鈭?x虏+y虏)鈮, we have |y|鈮も垰(r虏-x虏) and since 鈭?x虏+z虏)鈮, we have |z|鈮も垰(r虏-x虏). Further, as long as (y, z) is in the square of side length 2鈭?r虏-x虏), then |y|鈮も垰(r虏-x虏) and |z|鈮も垰(r虏-x虏), so 鈭?y虏+z虏) 鈮?鈭?2(r虏-x虏)) 鈮?鈭?2(r虏-r虏/2) = r, so (x, y, z) is in the third cylinder as well and thus in the intersection of all three cylinders. So the cross section here is a square of length 2鈭?r虏-x虏) and thus of volume 4(r虏-x虏). Thus the volume of the region {(x, y, z)鈭圱: x%26gt;r/鈭?} is:
[r/鈭?, r]鈭?(r虏-x虏) dx
4(r虏x - x鲁/3)|[r/鈭?, r]
4(r鲁 - r鲁/3) - 4(r鲁/鈭? - r鲁/(6鈭?))
8/3 r鲁 - 5鈭?/3 r鲁
Multiplying this by 6 and adding the volume of the cube yields the volume of the tricylinder:
6(8/3 r鲁 - 5鈭?/3 r鲁) + 2鈭? r虏
(16 - 8鈭?) r鲁
And we are done.What is the maximum volume of this object?
Couldn't it be infinity because the rest of the object could extend on forever as far as we know?
I think it's a sphere, so max volume = 4/3 pi r^3 where r= 1/2, so max volume = pi/6
Good Question.
It is not a sphere. It's bigger. It surface is a set of planes bent in one direction only. Spheres bend in two directions
It is a Stienmetz solid. See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SteinmetzSo鈥?/a>
The answer is .587
Happy New Year.
*******************************
Here is a good site for pictures of similar solids going up to an intersection of 200 cylinders. The more intersections, the more it is shaped like a sphere. http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/ge鈥?/a>
How do you do direct and indirect object pronouns in Spanish?
I can't really get it... I dono if someone can explain it or send me a link or something... I just gotta know how to do it for my final tomorrow.How do you do direct and indirect object pronouns in Spanish?
A Direct object pronoun consists of lo, la, los, and las.
E.G.: I buy meat.
Yo compro la carne
Yo la compro.
E.G.: I invite my friends.
Yo invito mis amigos
Yo los invito.
Indirect consists of le and les
E.G: I see her.
Yo le veo
E.G.: I see them
Yo les veo.
A Direct object pronoun consists of lo, la, los, and las.
E.G.: I buy meat.
Yo compro la carne
Yo la compro.
E.G.: I invite my friends.
Yo invito mis amigos
Yo los invito.
Indirect consists of le and les
E.G: I see her.
Yo le veo
E.G.: I see them
Yo les veo.
How do I make a picture all in gray-scale, but leave one object in color?
I've been wanting to do this for a while, but I have no idea how to. Do I need a certain kind of software? What kind? Would Picasa work? And once I get it, what do I have to do to work it?
Thanks so much!How do I make a picture all in gray-scale, but leave one object in color?
Photoshop. Duplicate your original image (never work on the original), then duplicate the working image and do a Mode: grayscale. Revert back to RGB mode, select ALL copy and then paste it on top of your first working image.
You will have two layers. The top will be Gray, the bottom color. Use your outline tool (I like using the polygram for complete control) after zooming into the area you want to edit. Once you have selected the area you want to change back to color, you can either feather the edges or do a direct erasure of the gray. Flatten.
Done.
There are also other ways to do this... you can select the area you want to remain color with the tool and then Select Inverse and adjust color to remove all... same results.
There is yet another... numerous ways to make changes and everyone has a favorite or one they prefer over or know of. I don't know about Picassa but some say it's limited or not able to perform correctly.
You could get Paint Shop Pro (version 4.12 is free on the internet) and you'd be very happy with it for now too.
How do I make a picture all in gray-scale, but leave one object in color?
You can do that using Adobe Photoshop. You make a duplicate layer of the background, and turn the copy layer to BW. Then you turn on a mask layer and paint through the copy layer to show the colored part of the background layer underneath. Flatten the image and save as a jpg.
I'm not familiar with Picasa, you may be able to do something similar if it works roughly the same way as photoshop. I know Paint Shop Pro works this was too.
Picasa wont do it properly.
You need to look for a programme that works with layers, such as photoshop, PSP, or Gimp.
You can download Photoshop CS4 on a 30 day free trial.
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index鈥?/a>
Below, is a link to a tutorial for selective colouring.
Hope this helps.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/nannajul鈥?/a>
from my stand point i know nothing about picassa. I have photoshop which can be expensive, but for alll intensive purposes photoshop elements 7 is about $130 or so. I have used this technique. best way to view it is probably. you can view my thread with out becoming a member but if you are into photography this is a great place to bebeauty treatments car oil
Thanks so much!How do I make a picture all in gray-scale, but leave one object in color?
Photoshop. Duplicate your original image (never work on the original), then duplicate the working image and do a Mode: grayscale. Revert back to RGB mode, select ALL copy and then paste it on top of your first working image.
You will have two layers. The top will be Gray, the bottom color. Use your outline tool (I like using the polygram for complete control) after zooming into the area you want to edit. Once you have selected the area you want to change back to color, you can either feather the edges or do a direct erasure of the gray. Flatten.
Done.
There are also other ways to do this... you can select the area you want to remain color with the tool and then Select Inverse and adjust color to remove all... same results.
There is yet another... numerous ways to make changes and everyone has a favorite or one they prefer over or know of. I don't know about Picassa but some say it's limited or not able to perform correctly.
You could get Paint Shop Pro (version 4.12 is free on the internet) and you'd be very happy with it for now too.
How do I make a picture all in gray-scale, but leave one object in color?
You can do that using Adobe Photoshop. You make a duplicate layer of the background, and turn the copy layer to BW. Then you turn on a mask layer and paint through the copy layer to show the colored part of the background layer underneath. Flatten the image and save as a jpg.
I'm not familiar with Picasa, you may be able to do something similar if it works roughly the same way as photoshop. I know Paint Shop Pro works this was too.
Picasa wont do it properly.
You need to look for a programme that works with layers, such as photoshop, PSP, or Gimp.
You can download Photoshop CS4 on a 30 day free trial.
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index鈥?/a>
Below, is a link to a tutorial for selective colouring.
Hope this helps.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/nannajul鈥?/a>
from my stand point i know nothing about picassa. I have photoshop which can be expensive, but for alll intensive purposes photoshop elements 7 is about $130 or so. I have used this technique. best way to view it is probably. you can view my thread with out becoming a member but if you are into photography this is a great place to be
I need to find an organic object to sketch for my art class. Any suggestions?
For our sketchbook assignment, we need to draw an organic object using controur lines; so the object needs to have a lot of lines (so something round and smooth, like an apple, would be somewhat hard to draw for this assignment). My art class is 3 hours long so I am kind of looking for something that won't be too messy (and preferably not smell too bad). Any suggestions would be great. Thanks.I need to find an organic object to sketch for my art class. Any suggestions?
Hi i have some art experience.You should stick to something that interests you. Something that bores you won't hold your attention and will most likely adversely effect your grade. There are a lot of things that are organic that you may not think of that would be interesting to draw like a cotton denim jacket or leather gloves.Maybe an insect such as a butterfly or spider.I need to find an organic object to sketch for my art class. Any suggestions?
Squash......Well at least I tried.
watermelon
Celery. It's got great lines. :)
how about a pineapple?
How about a potted mum, plenty of lines there.
A bowl of CornFlakes?
a piece of driftwood
The horned melon
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h鈥?/a>
Would a rose work? They look slightly difficult to me...
Hi i have some art experience.You should stick to something that interests you. Something that bores you won't hold your attention and will most likely adversely effect your grade. There are a lot of things that are organic that you may not think of that would be interesting to draw like a cotton denim jacket or leather gloves.Maybe an insect such as a butterfly or spider.I need to find an organic object to sketch for my art class. Any suggestions?
Squash......Well at least I tried.
watermelon
Celery. It's got great lines. :)
how about a pineapple?
How about a potted mum, plenty of lines there.
A bowl of CornFlakes?
a piece of driftwood
The horned melon
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h鈥?/a>
Would a rose work? They look slightly difficult to me...
How do I calculate how much force is exerted on a 40-kg object with an acceleration of 13 meters/second^2?
The force exerted on an object varies jointly as the mass and acceleration of the object. If a 129-Newton force is exerted on an object of mass 21.5 kg and an acceleration of 6 meters/second^2.How do I calculate how much force is exerted on a 40-kg object with an acceleration of 13 meters/second^2?
Force(In Newtons)=Mass(In Kg) XAcceleration(In m/sec^2)
If the mass = 40kg and the acceleration = 13m/s^2 then the force = 13 X 40, = 520 Newtons.
If the mass =21.5kg and the acceleration = 6m/s^2
then the force = 21.5 X 6 = 129 Newtons.
Which of these was the actual question?How do I calculate how much force is exerted on a 40-kg object with an acceleration of 13 meters/second^2?
force = mass x acceleration
F = ma
F is in Newtons
m is in kg
a is in meters/second^2
so..
F= (40)(13)
From your given, it also works F = (21.5)(6) = 129
Force(In Newtons)=Mass(In Kg) XAcceleration(In m/sec^2)
If the mass = 40kg and the acceleration = 13m/s^2 then the force = 13 X 40, = 520 Newtons.
If the mass =21.5kg and the acceleration = 6m/s^2
then the force = 21.5 X 6 = 129 Newtons.
Which of these was the actual question?How do I calculate how much force is exerted on a 40-kg object with an acceleration of 13 meters/second^2?
force = mass x acceleration
F = ma
F is in Newtons
m is in kg
a is in meters/second^2
so..
F= (40)(13)
From your given, it also works F = (21.5)(6) = 129
What is the relationship between an object's speed and its kinetic energy?
I'm not sure but is it like the higher the speed, the higher kinetic energy it will have? We're doing this lab and I need a hypothesis. I researched but It isn't helping. So PLEASE help!!?What is the relationship between an object's speed and its kinetic energy?
That makes sense, because kinetic energy is ';energy in motion'; and if something is moving faster than something else it would have to have more kinetic energy.. right? i've always thought about kinetic energy in relationship to automobiles... the faster you're driving, the more energy you'd have.What is the relationship between an object's speed and its kinetic energy?
KE=1/2*M*V^2 V is speed therefore the higher the speed, the higher the kinetic energy
KE = 1/2 mv^2
i.e. kinetic energy goes up linear with the mass, and with the square of the speed.
That makes sense, because kinetic energy is ';energy in motion'; and if something is moving faster than something else it would have to have more kinetic energy.. right? i've always thought about kinetic energy in relationship to automobiles... the faster you're driving, the more energy you'd have.What is the relationship between an object's speed and its kinetic energy?
KE=1/2*M*V^2 V is speed therefore the higher the speed, the higher the kinetic energy
KE = 1/2 mv^2
i.e. kinetic energy goes up linear with the mass, and with the square of the speed.
Why does time slow as an object nears the speed of light? How is this possible?
What happens to the object and time if an object exceeds the speed of light?Why does time slow as an object nears the speed of light? How is this possible?
Since they already told you the mathematical answer, here is the conceptual one.
Imagine this:
You are standing in a lab. Your friend is standing on a kart on which a light clock has been built. The clock consists of two mirrors. One if mounted on the floor of the kart and the other is supended above it. The mirrored sides are facing.
A photon of light bounces between the two mirrors. It hits the bottom mirror every second. Now your friend syncronizes the light clock to your watch so they both tick at the same rate.
Then the kart is set in motion and travels with a velocity which is a large percentage of the speed of light.
From your friend's point of view on the kart, the photon is still going up and down. But from your point of view, as the kart goes by, the photon is going up and down while moving sideways along with the kart, so it appears to you that it takes a diagonal path up and a diagonal path down.
Trigonometry tells us that the diagonal path is longer than the straight up or down that your friend on the kart see's. Now this is the tricky part...
For the photon to hit the mirror at the same your watch ticks, traveling the path that you see it taking, it HAS to speed up because it has farther to go. The problem is, it can't speed up because the speed of light is constant. As a result, your watch ticks before the photon hits the mirror and to you it appears that the light clock is running slow. To your friend, the light clock is running just fine. This means that to you, EVERYTHING on the kart is running slow, and time on the kart has slowed down.
Now, the same thing is going on from your friend's point of view when he looks at you on the ground as he goes by on the kart. Your watch looks like it's running slow, and everything you do appears to be running slow and from his point of view, your time has slowed down.
Back to the kart, the faster it goes, the longer the path you see the photon take becomes, which means that the less diagonal and more horizonal it becomes. It never becomes completely horizontal for mathematical reasons but it comes close enough to it such that the photon NEVER gets to the mirror it was traveling to. What's happening on the kart from your perspective? Time has stopped.
Pretty funky eh?
According to the actual equations, we cannot exceed the speed of light and time can't go backwards. That may be correct or it may be that there is what's called a discontinuity...basically where the rules of the game change in the middle of it.
Experiments indicate that things may be able to occure faster than the speed of light, however, information itself cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light.Why does time slow as an object nears the speed of light? How is this possible?
This phenomenon has to do with the constancy of the speed of light. For all intertial frames of reference, the speed of light is always a constant, c.
To keep things short, the equation d=rt (distance=(rate)(time) may be used to show time slowing. If I rearrange the equation, I receive r=d/t; or, c (the speed of light)=d/t. If the speed of light is constant for all intertial frames of reference (meaning, at any speed I may be moving), and I can measure the speed of light to be constant at each frame, I must adjust the variables ';d'; or ';t'; to keep c the same.
Therefore, time and space tend to dilate and contract (respectively) due to this constancy in ';c.';
This is a really sketchy explanation. I would suggest reading into it a little more to get a better idea of this concept.
Every thing starts from the measurement of speed of light in vacuum.
Speed of light was measured from the earth when the earth was moving toward a ray of light and when it was moving away from the earth.
The accuracy of measurement was so high that we cannot make any error by the way of measurement.
Our experience with ordinary speed says that when we move toward a beam of light
the light beam should reach us sooner than when we were at rest. Similarly it should reach us late if we move away from that. But the above experiment has confirmed that the speed of light remains the same in what ever speed we go.
We measure the speed of light by dividing the distance it has traveled by the time taken for the light to cover that distance.
Theoretically it has been proved that the speed of light is a constant for different observer if the time and length of a moving observer changes with its speed.
Many experiments with particles have proved the same.
Now imagine we are moving toward a light beam with a speed very near to the speed of light, c.
We measure the speed of light. We now know it must be also c. This is possible only if our distance and time is also very small.
From this we conclude if we reach the speed of light the distance and time becomes exactly zero. The meaning of distance and time no more exists. That is the reason that we say that no material object can not move with the speed of light.
It would not for the subject travelling at the speed of light, but only for those observing from a different frame of reference.
Here is yet another way to look at ';time dilation';.
All objects are moving not only through space, but through time as well. Einstein and Co called this ';Space-time';.
Einstein proved that the speed of light is constant, and he ALSO proved that everything is ALWAYS moving at the speed of light!! Crazy, right?
Not quite. See, everything is moving through space-TIME at the speed of light. For most objects, like baseballs, cats, amoebas, planets, they are translating through space and a fairly slow rate compared to time. The remainder of their speed-of-light speed is being used to propel them forward in TIME.
So: When an object is accelerated towards the speed of light, what really is happening is the portion of speed-of-light speed that was being used by the object to move through time is now being used to move the object through 3 dimensional space! The constancy of the speed of light is preserved, it is simply moved around a bit!
With less velocity in the time dimension, time, for the object being accelerated, will seem to slow down.
Pretty cool, eh?
time dialation is what this effect is called. It is quite measurable too. Muons who have a very short lifetime are generated way up in the atmosphere above us. However, their lifetime is so short, how can we actually detect their existance?
Why? Because they are moving close to the speed of light, that the time they are around is dialated (slowed down) by this formula: t = to[1/SQRT(1-v^2/c^2)]
In addition to the time slowing down, as a particle with mass moves faster, the mass of the particle grows--the energy put into moving it faster actually becomes mass from the famous Einstein postulate: E = mc^2
Therefore time will slow and the object gets more massive as it reaches the speed of light. The mass would be infinite as it approaces c.
In case u dont understand wats written abv check this
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>
Check out this question from a few days back: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=1鈥?/a>
The second question answer is simply ';because that is how nature works.'; More insteresting is why you ASKED that question; that is because it is counter-intuitive to your everyday experience and that is only because the speed of light is so darn large.
If the speed of light was low, like it became for Mr. Tompkins in the book below, it would just be ';the way it is.'; If you grew up in a spaceship orbiting the sun, and then one day landed on a planet like the earth at night, you would be amazed that the sky is blue when the sun came up. ';Why is the sky blue? How is this possible?'; You might not know the answer to the first, but you would not ask the question to the second anyway, simply because you are used to it being blue!
A nice light fiction book that explores this is called ';Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland'; by George Gamow.
This effect is called the Time Dialation, and is the consequence of the Lorentz Transformation. Consider the formula:
t=t'/square root (1-v^2/c^2).
It cna be clearly seen from this formula that the proper time time of the moving object is always less than the corresponding interval in the rest frame. This implies that a moving clock runs slower as it nears the speed of light.
Nothing travels at a sped more than that of light. This is the most important inference of the Special Theory of Relativity. So ur second question is insignificant.
I dont know about what happens if it exceeds (i don't think tha you can).
but now to understand what happens as we reach speed of light. Think of a clock in a spaceship that measures time by a ray striking a mirror surface. So there are two mirror surfaces and in between there is a ray. As you approach speed of light the ray will have to travel more of a slant path because the whole space ship is movin too fast. It's hard to envision. REMEMBER that if you are on the ship its all right, but you have to be normal observer to see this. Now say that you are watching that clock and the ray left one of the mirror surfaces, if it just goes to the other side directly perpendicularly it will not reach it (because the ship is moving so by the time the ray gets there the other surface already went up some) so it takes a longer path and longer path means more time (as the speed of light is constant 3 times 10^8 m/s). So a regular second will be less then a second there.
I did my best with words hope this helps.
Good luck.
Time is relative. If you stand still (impossible in this universe) you get nowhere. The faster you go the more time you have. Speed of light is the end of time. You have all the time and go everywhere. This makes going faster impossible. So it will never happen.
Hope this answers your question. It sure blows my mind.
Since they already told you the mathematical answer, here is the conceptual one.
Imagine this:
You are standing in a lab. Your friend is standing on a kart on which a light clock has been built. The clock consists of two mirrors. One if mounted on the floor of the kart and the other is supended above it. The mirrored sides are facing.
A photon of light bounces between the two mirrors. It hits the bottom mirror every second. Now your friend syncronizes the light clock to your watch so they both tick at the same rate.
Then the kart is set in motion and travels with a velocity which is a large percentage of the speed of light.
From your friend's point of view on the kart, the photon is still going up and down. But from your point of view, as the kart goes by, the photon is going up and down while moving sideways along with the kart, so it appears to you that it takes a diagonal path up and a diagonal path down.
Trigonometry tells us that the diagonal path is longer than the straight up or down that your friend on the kart see's. Now this is the tricky part...
For the photon to hit the mirror at the same your watch ticks, traveling the path that you see it taking, it HAS to speed up because it has farther to go. The problem is, it can't speed up because the speed of light is constant. As a result, your watch ticks before the photon hits the mirror and to you it appears that the light clock is running slow. To your friend, the light clock is running just fine. This means that to you, EVERYTHING on the kart is running slow, and time on the kart has slowed down.
Now, the same thing is going on from your friend's point of view when he looks at you on the ground as he goes by on the kart. Your watch looks like it's running slow, and everything you do appears to be running slow and from his point of view, your time has slowed down.
Back to the kart, the faster it goes, the longer the path you see the photon take becomes, which means that the less diagonal and more horizonal it becomes. It never becomes completely horizontal for mathematical reasons but it comes close enough to it such that the photon NEVER gets to the mirror it was traveling to. What's happening on the kart from your perspective? Time has stopped.
Pretty funky eh?
According to the actual equations, we cannot exceed the speed of light and time can't go backwards. That may be correct or it may be that there is what's called a discontinuity...basically where the rules of the game change in the middle of it.
Experiments indicate that things may be able to occure faster than the speed of light, however, information itself cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light.Why does time slow as an object nears the speed of light? How is this possible?
This phenomenon has to do with the constancy of the speed of light. For all intertial frames of reference, the speed of light is always a constant, c.
To keep things short, the equation d=rt (distance=(rate)(time) may be used to show time slowing. If I rearrange the equation, I receive r=d/t; or, c (the speed of light)=d/t. If the speed of light is constant for all intertial frames of reference (meaning, at any speed I may be moving), and I can measure the speed of light to be constant at each frame, I must adjust the variables ';d'; or ';t'; to keep c the same.
Therefore, time and space tend to dilate and contract (respectively) due to this constancy in ';c.';
This is a really sketchy explanation. I would suggest reading into it a little more to get a better idea of this concept.
Every thing starts from the measurement of speed of light in vacuum.
Speed of light was measured from the earth when the earth was moving toward a ray of light and when it was moving away from the earth.
The accuracy of measurement was so high that we cannot make any error by the way of measurement.
Our experience with ordinary speed says that when we move toward a beam of light
the light beam should reach us sooner than when we were at rest. Similarly it should reach us late if we move away from that. But the above experiment has confirmed that the speed of light remains the same in what ever speed we go.
We measure the speed of light by dividing the distance it has traveled by the time taken for the light to cover that distance.
Theoretically it has been proved that the speed of light is a constant for different observer if the time and length of a moving observer changes with its speed.
Many experiments with particles have proved the same.
Now imagine we are moving toward a light beam with a speed very near to the speed of light, c.
We measure the speed of light. We now know it must be also c. This is possible only if our distance and time is also very small.
From this we conclude if we reach the speed of light the distance and time becomes exactly zero. The meaning of distance and time no more exists. That is the reason that we say that no material object can not move with the speed of light.
It would not for the subject travelling at the speed of light, but only for those observing from a different frame of reference.
Here is yet another way to look at ';time dilation';.
All objects are moving not only through space, but through time as well. Einstein and Co called this ';Space-time';.
Einstein proved that the speed of light is constant, and he ALSO proved that everything is ALWAYS moving at the speed of light!! Crazy, right?
Not quite. See, everything is moving through space-TIME at the speed of light. For most objects, like baseballs, cats, amoebas, planets, they are translating through space and a fairly slow rate compared to time. The remainder of their speed-of-light speed is being used to propel them forward in TIME.
So: When an object is accelerated towards the speed of light, what really is happening is the portion of speed-of-light speed that was being used by the object to move through time is now being used to move the object through 3 dimensional space! The constancy of the speed of light is preserved, it is simply moved around a bit!
With less velocity in the time dimension, time, for the object being accelerated, will seem to slow down.
Pretty cool, eh?
time dialation is what this effect is called. It is quite measurable too. Muons who have a very short lifetime are generated way up in the atmosphere above us. However, their lifetime is so short, how can we actually detect their existance?
Why? Because they are moving close to the speed of light, that the time they are around is dialated (slowed down) by this formula: t = to[1/SQRT(1-v^2/c^2)]
In addition to the time slowing down, as a particle with mass moves faster, the mass of the particle grows--the energy put into moving it faster actually becomes mass from the famous Einstein postulate: E = mc^2
Therefore time will slow and the object gets more massive as it reaches the speed of light. The mass would be infinite as it approaces c.
In case u dont understand wats written abv check this
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>
Check out this question from a few days back: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=1鈥?/a>
The second question answer is simply ';because that is how nature works.'; More insteresting is why you ASKED that question; that is because it is counter-intuitive to your everyday experience and that is only because the speed of light is so darn large.
If the speed of light was low, like it became for Mr. Tompkins in the book below, it would just be ';the way it is.'; If you grew up in a spaceship orbiting the sun, and then one day landed on a planet like the earth at night, you would be amazed that the sky is blue when the sun came up. ';Why is the sky blue? How is this possible?'; You might not know the answer to the first, but you would not ask the question to the second anyway, simply because you are used to it being blue!
A nice light fiction book that explores this is called ';Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland'; by George Gamow.
This effect is called the Time Dialation, and is the consequence of the Lorentz Transformation. Consider the formula:
t=t'/square root (1-v^2/c^2).
It cna be clearly seen from this formula that the proper time time of the moving object is always less than the corresponding interval in the rest frame. This implies that a moving clock runs slower as it nears the speed of light.
Nothing travels at a sped more than that of light. This is the most important inference of the Special Theory of Relativity. So ur second question is insignificant.
I dont know about what happens if it exceeds (i don't think tha you can).
but now to understand what happens as we reach speed of light. Think of a clock in a spaceship that measures time by a ray striking a mirror surface. So there are two mirror surfaces and in between there is a ray. As you approach speed of light the ray will have to travel more of a slant path because the whole space ship is movin too fast. It's hard to envision. REMEMBER that if you are on the ship its all right, but you have to be normal observer to see this. Now say that you are watching that clock and the ray left one of the mirror surfaces, if it just goes to the other side directly perpendicularly it will not reach it (because the ship is moving so by the time the ray gets there the other surface already went up some) so it takes a longer path and longer path means more time (as the speed of light is constant 3 times 10^8 m/s). So a regular second will be less then a second there.
I did my best with words hope this helps.
Good luck.
Time is relative. If you stand still (impossible in this universe) you get nowhere. The faster you go the more time you have. Speed of light is the end of time. You have all the time and go everywhere. This makes going faster impossible. So it will never happen.
Hope this answers your question. It sure blows my mind.
Is it possible to have an object moving in a certain direction with an accleration in perpendicular direction?
tell me what does the movement in the perpendicular directiopn refers to ? is it something about graphs? explain me in detail!please!Is it possible to have an object moving in a certain direction with an accleration in perpendicular direction?
OF course yes!
Centripetal accleration .... when you are moving in acircular path, your dirction of motion is alng the tangent at that particular point and the centripetal accleration is perpendicular to that tangent!
Thats it!
Is it clear?Is it possible to have an object moving in a certain direction with an accleration in perpendicular direction?
If it's acceleration in a perp direction, it will not be a ';certain direction'; because it will not be a straight line. Imagine you are in a plane going forward. there is a jet engine aiming sideways off the right wing. You turn it on. You will still go forward but also to the left on a diagonal. If the engine is ACCELERATING (not a constant speed but always increasing) it will push you in an arc.
All circular motion.
Yes, of course. Throw a ball horizontally. The acceleration is downward and the motion is mostly horizontal.
Props to the people who wrote about circular motion. The word for that kind of acceleration, which keeps things moving on circular paths and is perpendicular to the velocity vector is centripetal acceleration.
tOnA is dead wrong and her answer is gibberish. Additionally, being under the influence of gravity (a car driving along but feeling the pull of gravity towards the ground) is NOT accelerating. Acceleration is the quotient of the net force and the body mass, or the change in acceleration vector velocity. In the case of gravity, if you are standing on the ground, the force of gravity is counteracted by the normal force of the ground. The 2 forces cancel each other out and you don't move (this is trivially why you don't fall through the ground). So if you are standing on the ground, even though you are under the influence of a force, you do not speed up, slow down, or change direction (your velocity doesn't change) due to gravity. So in this case you are not accelerating perpendicular to anything. You just aren't accelerating.
hey, just remember a car moving at constant velocity always has acceleration dur to gravity downwards, so....!
tOna is wrong. The definition of perpendicular is ';at 90 degrees';. The way she is using it is making the object slow down with is 180 degrees acceleration vector from the velocity vector.
Perpendicular acceleration vector to the current velocity vector is quite possible and the two are not mutually exclusive. I'm not sure since I don't know what equation you're using but it sounds like the object might be describing a circle under those circumstances.
tom
Perpendicular direction usually refers to a movement of 90 degrees to the horizontal plane.
If you have an object moving on a horizontal plane and it is struck by an object moving towards it perpendicularly the horizontal object will be displaced in direction from the horizontal. Depending on the impact speed the horizontal will be displaced at a given rate. This would be true at any other angle as well.
Take two tennis balls..have one person roll one ball across the floor. With the second ball roll it so it will impact the 1st ball. The first ball will be displaced by the speed of the 2nd ball.
Mathematically or by graph I don't remember anymore it has been nearly 45 years since I had to do it...
Inside an elevator, if you move side way, you move parallel to the floor of the elevator. But you and the elevator are accelerating in upward or downward direction,which is perpendicular to the horizontal direction.
yes just look at the moon. the earth puts a force on it perpendicular to the direction it is moving at any time. this causes it to go around in circles.
in circular motion direction of motion and acceleration are perpendicular to each other
Okay, this is a physics thing. When something is moving forward, there will always be perpendicular acceleration, which is basically saying that it's slowing down. The reason there is perpendicular acceleration is friction. If there was no friction, there would be no perpendicular acceleration. So don't confuse yourself! Physics is pretty easy!
Yes, this is what causes circular motion. The acceleration is always along the string because the force is always along the string. The object is always moving perp to the string. Therefore, the object on the string is always accelerating perp to the path of travel.
It isn't about graphs. It's about vectors.
Note, the object doesn't speed up or slow down. It just changes direction. This is because the acceleration is never in the same direction as the velocity vector.
Yes. See ';centripetal acceleration.'; An object traveling in a circular (orbital) path experiences acceleration toward the center of the circle, which is always perpendicular to the direction of motion.
Also, when you walk down the street at a constant speed, you are accelerating (due to gravity) downward.
the only time it works is in circular motion. It is called centripital acceleration
yes it is perfecetly possible to have this motion
the motion so acquirer tc circular motion
the force responsible for this acc is ';centripetal acceleration ';
this is the motion htat goverens all planatery motion and motion of sattlite i would advicew u to read the first chapter of the 12TH class or any iit or aieee physics book for a detailed sol and equations
best of luck
OF course yes!
Centripetal accleration .... when you are moving in acircular path, your dirction of motion is alng the tangent at that particular point and the centripetal accleration is perpendicular to that tangent!
Thats it!
Is it clear?Is it possible to have an object moving in a certain direction with an accleration in perpendicular direction?
If it's acceleration in a perp direction, it will not be a ';certain direction'; because it will not be a straight line. Imagine you are in a plane going forward. there is a jet engine aiming sideways off the right wing. You turn it on. You will still go forward but also to the left on a diagonal. If the engine is ACCELERATING (not a constant speed but always increasing) it will push you in an arc.
All circular motion.
Yes, of course. Throw a ball horizontally. The acceleration is downward and the motion is mostly horizontal.
Props to the people who wrote about circular motion. The word for that kind of acceleration, which keeps things moving on circular paths and is perpendicular to the velocity vector is centripetal acceleration.
tOnA is dead wrong and her answer is gibberish. Additionally, being under the influence of gravity (a car driving along but feeling the pull of gravity towards the ground) is NOT accelerating. Acceleration is the quotient of the net force and the body mass, or the change in acceleration vector velocity. In the case of gravity, if you are standing on the ground, the force of gravity is counteracted by the normal force of the ground. The 2 forces cancel each other out and you don't move (this is trivially why you don't fall through the ground). So if you are standing on the ground, even though you are under the influence of a force, you do not speed up, slow down, or change direction (your velocity doesn't change) due to gravity. So in this case you are not accelerating perpendicular to anything. You just aren't accelerating.
hey, just remember a car moving at constant velocity always has acceleration dur to gravity downwards, so....!
tOna is wrong. The definition of perpendicular is ';at 90 degrees';. The way she is using it is making the object slow down with is 180 degrees acceleration vector from the velocity vector.
Perpendicular acceleration vector to the current velocity vector is quite possible and the two are not mutually exclusive. I'm not sure since I don't know what equation you're using but it sounds like the object might be describing a circle under those circumstances.
tom
Perpendicular direction usually refers to a movement of 90 degrees to the horizontal plane.
If you have an object moving on a horizontal plane and it is struck by an object moving towards it perpendicularly the horizontal object will be displaced in direction from the horizontal. Depending on the impact speed the horizontal will be displaced at a given rate. This would be true at any other angle as well.
Take two tennis balls..have one person roll one ball across the floor. With the second ball roll it so it will impact the 1st ball. The first ball will be displaced by the speed of the 2nd ball.
Mathematically or by graph I don't remember anymore it has been nearly 45 years since I had to do it...
Inside an elevator, if you move side way, you move parallel to the floor of the elevator. But you and the elevator are accelerating in upward or downward direction,which is perpendicular to the horizontal direction.
yes just look at the moon. the earth puts a force on it perpendicular to the direction it is moving at any time. this causes it to go around in circles.
in circular motion direction of motion and acceleration are perpendicular to each other
Okay, this is a physics thing. When something is moving forward, there will always be perpendicular acceleration, which is basically saying that it's slowing down. The reason there is perpendicular acceleration is friction. If there was no friction, there would be no perpendicular acceleration. So don't confuse yourself! Physics is pretty easy!
Yes, this is what causes circular motion. The acceleration is always along the string because the force is always along the string. The object is always moving perp to the string. Therefore, the object on the string is always accelerating perp to the path of travel.
It isn't about graphs. It's about vectors.
Note, the object doesn't speed up or slow down. It just changes direction. This is because the acceleration is never in the same direction as the velocity vector.
Yes. See ';centripetal acceleration.'; An object traveling in a circular (orbital) path experiences acceleration toward the center of the circle, which is always perpendicular to the direction of motion.
Also, when you walk down the street at a constant speed, you are accelerating (due to gravity) downward.
the only time it works is in circular motion. It is called centripital acceleration
yes it is perfecetly possible to have this motion
the motion so acquirer tc circular motion
the force responsible for this acc is ';centripetal acceleration ';
this is the motion htat goverens all planatery motion and motion of sattlite i would advicew u to read the first chapter of the 12TH class or any iit or aieee physics book for a detailed sol and equations
best of luck
How long does it take an object to fall to a point 12 m below if it was thrown upward with a speed of 6 m/s?
The answer is 2.29 sec.
How did my teacher get this?How long does it take an object to fall to a point 12 m below if it was thrown upward with a speed of 6 m/s?
-12.6=-72How long does it take an object to fall to a point 12 m below if it was thrown upward with a speed of 6 m/s?
Do this in parts - constant accelerated motion
pt 1:
How long does it take for gravity (g) to diminish 6 m/s to 0.
(at zero speed the object has risen to its max height)
t1 = time to come to zero speed = 6/g = 6/9.8 = 0.61 sec
pt 2:
We know that under constant accelerated motion an object falls back to the same height it was launched from in the same time interval it took to rise. And at launch height it will have the same speed (although downward in direction) it had when launched.
So object takes another 0.61 sec to fall back to launch height.
pt 3:
The formula for distance under gravity with an initial velocity is:
d = v0(t) + 1/2gt虏
12 = 6t + 4.9t虏
0 = -12 + 6t + 4.9t虏
solve quadratic for + t
t = 1.07 sec
Add times from 3 pts:
Total time = 0.61 + 0.61 + 1.07 = 2.29 sec ANSbeauty treatments car oil
How did my teacher get this?How long does it take an object to fall to a point 12 m below if it was thrown upward with a speed of 6 m/s?
-12.6=-72How long does it take an object to fall to a point 12 m below if it was thrown upward with a speed of 6 m/s?
Do this in parts - constant accelerated motion
pt 1:
How long does it take for gravity (g) to diminish 6 m/s to 0.
(at zero speed the object has risen to its max height)
t1 = time to come to zero speed = 6/g = 6/9.8 = 0.61 sec
pt 2:
We know that under constant accelerated motion an object falls back to the same height it was launched from in the same time interval it took to rise. And at launch height it will have the same speed (although downward in direction) it had when launched.
So object takes another 0.61 sec to fall back to launch height.
pt 3:
The formula for distance under gravity with an initial velocity is:
d = v0(t) + 1/2gt虏
12 = 6t + 4.9t虏
0 = -12 + 6t + 4.9t虏
solve quadratic for + t
t = 1.07 sec
Add times from 3 pts:
Total time = 0.61 + 0.61 + 1.07 = 2.29 sec ANS
How long does it take an object to fall 10m, 100m, 1000m?
Can anyone tell me what I need to do to calculate this problem? I'm pretty sure I need to use d=1/2 ag t^2, but I don't know where to plug things in.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks in advance!How long does it take an object to fall 10m, 100m, 1000m?
To solve for the time.
you have to use this equation :
d = Vi*t + 1/2 a t^2
Becuase you are dropping the object, you have the right equation.
Therefore you plug in the values
d = 10, 100 , 1000
a = 9.8 m/s
Then you solve for time.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks in advance!How long does it take an object to fall 10m, 100m, 1000m?
To solve for the time.
you have to use this equation :
d = Vi*t + 1/2 a t^2
Becuase you are dropping the object, you have the right equation.
Therefore you plug in the values
d = 10, 100 , 1000
a = 9.8 m/s
Then you solve for time.
What role does experience play in object recognition and visual perception? Be sure to include a specific exam
What role does experience play in object recognition and visual perception? Be sure to include a specific example from your experience.What role does experience play in object recognition and visual perception? Be sure to include a specific exam
When I see a chair, I immediately recognize it as a chair. Even though a chair can be any color, have a back or no back, sometimes it even looks like a big bean bag. But I always recognize it as a chair due to my vast experience with chairs in the past.
I know that it is due to my experience because if you imagine trying to describe a chair to someone who has never seen one before it would be very difficult. A chair can look like a lot of different things, but my experience guides me to recognize them anyway.
When I see a chair, I immediately recognize it as a chair. Even though a chair can be any color, have a back or no back, sometimes it even looks like a big bean bag. But I always recognize it as a chair due to my vast experience with chairs in the past.
I know that it is due to my experience because if you imagine trying to describe a chair to someone who has never seen one before it would be very difficult. A chair can look like a lot of different things, but my experience guides me to recognize them anyway.
What was the first man-made object to break the sound barrier?
No, it wasn't a bullet!What was the first man-made object to break the sound barrier?
The bull whip was the first man made object that broke the sound barrier. the snap from a whip is an actual sonic boom, and if you watch the snap, you can see the little vapor cloud that it produces.What was the first man-made object to break the sound barrier?
Many people think that it was the whip but before the whip , in stoneage times , man would break the sound barrier using a knerl .
It's a jet but I think the baked beans would do it too!
jet
the sound of a cracking whip means that it has just broken the sound barrier, so from this example, you may imagine which (or rather when) it was.
Some guy in 1953 who ate to many baked beans.
a whip
The first man made object to break the sound barrier was the whip (as used by animal tamers) which has been around for thousands of years.
The bull whip was the first man made object that broke the sound barrier. the snap from a whip is an actual sonic boom, and if you watch the snap, you can see the little vapor cloud that it produces.What was the first man-made object to break the sound barrier?
Many people think that it was the whip but before the whip , in stoneage times , man would break the sound barrier using a knerl .
It's a jet but I think the baked beans would do it too!
jet
the sound of a cracking whip means that it has just broken the sound barrier, so from this example, you may imagine which (or rather when) it was.
Some guy in 1953 who ate to many baked beans.
a whip
The first man made object to break the sound barrier was the whip (as used by animal tamers) which has been around for thousands of years.
How can the volume of an irregular unknown object be measured?
Your answer:
using a ruler to measure length, width, and depth
measuring the volume of water displaced by the object
obtaining the mass of the object
measure the radius and use V=pr2How can the volume of an irregular unknown object be measured?
measuring the volume of water displaced by the object
1 is out cause it irregular
3 is out cause even with mass without the density you cannot get volume
4 is out because its not a sphereHow can the volume of an irregular unknown object be measured?
Measuring the volume of water it displaces.
using a ruler to measure length, width, and depth
measuring the volume of water displaced by the object
obtaining the mass of the object
measure the radius and use V=pr2How can the volume of an irregular unknown object be measured?
measuring the volume of water displaced by the object
1 is out cause it irregular
3 is out cause even with mass without the density you cannot get volume
4 is out because its not a sphereHow can the volume of an irregular unknown object be measured?
Measuring the volume of water it displaces.
What changes in motion are possible when an object is accelerating?
In addition to V changing, position can change as well because
x = 鈭埆a dtWhat changes in motion are possible when an object is accelerating?
Speed, both increasing and decreasing, and direction. Acceleration is just change in velocity, and velocity is made up of speed and direction.
x = 鈭埆a dtWhat changes in motion are possible when an object is accelerating?
Speed, both increasing and decreasing, and direction. Acceleration is just change in velocity, and velocity is made up of speed and direction.
Would an object have more momentum on the moon or on the earth?
Which do you think has more momentum, a bowling ball moving at 1 m/s on Earth or a bowling ball moving at 1 m/s on the Moon?Would an object have more momentum on the moon or on the earth?
why would you think they might have different momentums?Would an object have more momentum on the moon or on the earth?
samebeauty treatments car oil
why would you think they might have different momentums?Would an object have more momentum on the moon or on the earth?
same
How do you change the color of an object in a photo on Picasa2?
Picasa2 won't let me change the color of my skin,eyes,hair,etc. and of course it said it would. and how are you able to do that without having to buy another program? If you know a free program i can download that can do that i would really really aprecitate it. ThanksHow do you change the color of an object in a photo on Picasa2?
I think that you misunderstood ';adjust color'; as ';alter color.'; I use Picasa all the time... for overall organization and light touch-ups. I use Photoshop CS3 for anything heavy, such as smoothing skin, changing backgrounds, and seriously altering and improving color. You can't do any of these things in Picasa (but Picasa does have its uses).
I know that you can't afford Photoshop, but there is a free application called the GIMP (just Google for that) that does a good deal of what Photoshop does.How do you change the color of an object in a photo on Picasa2?
Picasa of google ,
http://picasa.google.com/
picasa is more for basic adjusting of photos, not really for adding advanced effects, so with that you could make copy of colored image into sepia or b%26amp;w, then open both in paint, then select color item with lasso tool transparency on, copy, then paste over b%26amp;w,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bo_fra/7090…
~so picasa is still good for viewing and organized images, but you'll want better program to add effects like color on b%26amp;w, ☺
Photofiltre ~to select, invert and desaturate,
http://photofiltre.free.fr/frames_en.htm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bo_fra/1043…
Gimp ~to add layers desaturate, erase , recolor, mask,
http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/stable.h…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bo_fra/4593…
Photoscape : to add spot with color
http://www.photoscape.org/ps/main/index.…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bo_fra/1107…
..
I think that you misunderstood ';adjust color'; as ';alter color.'; I use Picasa all the time... for overall organization and light touch-ups. I use Photoshop CS3 for anything heavy, such as smoothing skin, changing backgrounds, and seriously altering and improving color. You can't do any of these things in Picasa (but Picasa does have its uses).
I know that you can't afford Photoshop, but there is a free application called the GIMP (just Google for that) that does a good deal of what Photoshop does.How do you change the color of an object in a photo on Picasa2?
Picasa of google ,
http://picasa.google.com/
picasa is more for basic adjusting of photos, not really for adding advanced effects, so with that you could make copy of colored image into sepia or b%26amp;w, then open both in paint, then select color item with lasso tool transparency on, copy, then paste over b%26amp;w,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bo_fra/7090…
~so picasa is still good for viewing and organized images, but you'll want better program to add effects like color on b%26amp;w, ☺
Photofiltre ~to select, invert and desaturate,
http://photofiltre.free.fr/frames_en.htm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bo_fra/1043…
Gimp ~to add layers desaturate, erase , recolor, mask,
http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/stable.h…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bo_fra/4593…
Photoscape : to add spot with color
http://www.photoscape.org/ps/main/index.…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bo_fra/1107…
..
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
How much Potential Energy does a 25 kilogram object have if it is on a shelf 3 meters above the floor?
Short answer if you can; 9th grade science.How much Potential Energy does a 25 kilogram object have if it is on a shelf 3 meters above the floor?
P.E=mgh where m=25kg, g=10m/s2 (I assume that g=10, but in some cases, it equal to 9.8), h=3m
P.E=25*10*3
P.E=750 J
P.E=mgh where m=25kg, g=10m/s2 (I assume that g=10, but in some cases, it equal to 9.8), h=3m
P.E=25*10*3
P.E=750 J
How do I calculate VAT for a paricular object?
I am a student of class 9th.I have to do a Maths project.So,can anyone tell me how to calculate VAT for an object.if I know the price at which the manufacturer is selling to the distributor and the distributor to the retailer and finally to the consumer.How do I calculate VAT for a paricular object?
search for the equation on the internetHow do I calculate VAT for a paricular object?
Presumably you are British or you would have said Math.
With VAT at 17.5 %. the cost to the consumer is 117.5%, so to find the retailer's cost, you have to divide the retail price by 117.5 and multiply by 100. I don't know what else you have in the way of figures, but the same argument applies from the distributor to the retailer and again from manufacturer to distributor.
Work backward from each stage.
search for the equation on the internetHow do I calculate VAT for a paricular object?
Presumably you are British or you would have said Math.
With VAT at 17.5 %. the cost to the consumer is 117.5%, so to find the retailer's cost, you have to divide the retail price by 117.5 and multiply by 100. I don't know what else you have in the way of figures, but the same argument applies from the distributor to the retailer and again from manufacturer to distributor.
Work backward from each stage.
What is the best way to write efficient Object Oriented JavaScript?
I am trying to write a custom JavaScript framework. For that I need to categorize the classes into namespaces etc. So I need the most efficient way to write the classes, like wether or not to use prototype. Which notation shall be used the JSON or the other etc. Keeping in mind that the framework is cross browserWhat is the best way to write efficient Object Oriented JavaScript?
wooow
wooow
How do I find the height of an object w/ just the length and width given?
A block of wood has a volume of 137mm^3. If the block measures 9.3mm by 5.1mm, what is the height of the block?How do I find the height of an object w/ just the length and width given?
V=lwh
137=(9.5)(5.1)h
137/48.45=48.45h/48.45
h=5.83 mm (about)How do I find the height of an object w/ just the length and width given?
length x width x height = volume, right?
So you have
length (9.3) x width (5.1) x X ( cause youdon't know height) = 137 mm^3.
just solve for x. Divide both sides by lenght. Then divide both sides by width. What you have left is x (or height)
Volume= L x W x H
(divide each side by L x W to isolate H)
H=Volume/L x W
H=137/9.3 x 5.1
H=137/47.43
H=2.88846 mm (approx.)
Now, to check:
Volume= L x W x H
Volume= 9.3 x 5.1 x 2.8
Volume= 47.43 x 2.88846
Volume= 137 mm^3 (approx.)
volume = length x width x height
137 = (9.3)(5.1)h
137 = 47.43 h
h = 137/47.43
h = 2.89mm
well if it is a perfect square than you probrbly know how but otherwise i dont have a clue how to do that
V=lwh
137=(9.5)(5.1)h
137/48.45=48.45h/48.45
h=5.83 mm (about)How do I find the height of an object w/ just the length and width given?
length x width x height = volume, right?
So you have
length (9.3) x width (5.1) x X ( cause youdon't know height) = 137 mm^3.
just solve for x. Divide both sides by lenght. Then divide both sides by width. What you have left is x (or height)
Volume= L x W x H
(divide each side by L x W to isolate H)
H=Volume/L x W
H=137/9.3 x 5.1
H=137/47.43
H=2.88846 mm (approx.)
Now, to check:
Volume= L x W x H
Volume= 9.3 x 5.1 x 2.8
Volume= 47.43 x 2.88846
Volume= 137 mm^3 (approx.)
volume = length x width x height
137 = (9.3)(5.1)h
137 = 47.43 h
h = 137/47.43
h = 2.89mm
well if it is a perfect square than you probrbly know how but otherwise i dont have a clue how to do that
Theoretically speaking, is it possible to cut an object in half infinite times?
this question popped in my head today and at first i thought of it in a mathematical way and the answer was ';yes';, but if u think about it in a physics way, i dont think its possible. what do u think?Theoretically speaking, is it possible to cut an object in half infinite times?
If you take a ordinary paper weighing about 1 gram, and start cutting it in half, you will reach the size of an atom by the time you cut the paper in half about 80 times. After that you can not go very much farther. I think dividing 100 times, itself is beyond the limits of matter (as we understand today).
So the answer is NO.Theoretically speaking, is it possible to cut an object in half infinite times?
based on the current physics models no. if it an actual physical specimen, there are limits on minimum sizes based on the size of the smallest known particles. I guess we would be talking about muons or neutrinos. when you get down to these single charged particles, you can't split any further.
sure. even after you get to the atoms, you can still cut a proton in half then cut that in half etc. i don't see why not.beauty treatments car oil
If you take a ordinary paper weighing about 1 gram, and start cutting it in half, you will reach the size of an atom by the time you cut the paper in half about 80 times. After that you can not go very much farther. I think dividing 100 times, itself is beyond the limits of matter (as we understand today).
So the answer is NO.Theoretically speaking, is it possible to cut an object in half infinite times?
based on the current physics models no. if it an actual physical specimen, there are limits on minimum sizes based on the size of the smallest known particles. I guess we would be talking about muons or neutrinos. when you get down to these single charged particles, you can't split any further.
sure. even after you get to the atoms, you can still cut a proton in half then cut that in half etc. i don't see why not.
How many Object Oriented Programming Languages are there totally?
Why java is so special among these?How many Object Oriented Programming Languages are there totally?
Pretty many and the number is increasing. And even more allows OO as optional component. Mind you, for lot of them -- like C++ and ObjectPascal (and to some degree VisualBasic, Delphi) -- they've taken a *structured* programming langauge (like C and Pascal) and just added features for object-orienting. And other more ';pure'; oo-languages -- like Java and C# -- has been so much inspired by such languages (C and C++), thet they're really not very good OO-langauges.
C++ totally lacks a coherent class-hiarchy, although some can optionally be added (like iostream). If you add several optional components, you will get several seperated hiarchies. Java is somewhat better because it does have one hierachy. Unfortunately, the primitive types (char, int, float, ...) are defined *outside* this hierachy. Also, although Java is fully object-oriented, it leans heavely on it's more structured C/C++ ancestory... much is done ';the C way';, rather than ';the oo-way';.
To really sink your teeth into OO and understand the beauty of it, I would recomend other languages. Languages designed as OO from the beginning. A very good choice is SmallTalk, where everything -- incuding the langauge itself -- is part of *one single* large hiarachy. Playing around SmallTalk, will give you a feel for what OO is all about and make you think in the OO-way... this is then something you then can take with you to other ';lesser'; OO-languages, like C++ or Java.
Java is special because it was the first C-derived language with at least somewhat coherent class-hiearchy. It was designed with security in mind. It combines compiling and interperting, by ';compiling'; the program into ';byte-code';, which can then be interperted by the ';Java Virtual Machine';... a rather novell approach. It was designed to allow one to make ';applets'; -- specially designed programs to be downloaded over the net, and inserted into web-pages on your browser -- to run in other applications (like web-browsers).
IMHO, Java is not a very good langauge -- and an even worse OO-language. It's large advantage, is the connectivity with the web. It's slow and sluggish, which is a problem when making stand-alone applications. If you're not intending to make web-applications, there would be little reason to learn Java... Except for the fact that Java has got so much good press, that it has become a langauge employers ask for.How many Object Oriented Programming Languages are there totally?
There are a LOT. Smalltalk was the first back in the seventies and of course C, Cobol and Pascal all have Object-oriented versions (in Pascal's case both Delphi and Modula. The list on the wikipedia has almost a hundred, including extensions and derivatives. It's probably incomplete:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-orie鈥?/a>
What makes Java so special is it was the first object-oriented interpreted language optimized for internet and cross-platform operation. Think of it as midway between C++ and JavaScript and you will begin to get some idea of why it is so special. It's a Goldilocks language which is ';Just Right'; for some people.
There are more than 100 Object Oriented Programming Languages.
Java is the special among them because it is the first purely Object Oriented Programming Language. It is better than C++ (which was developed before Java and which is not pure object oriented language) in terms of memory management (garbage collector) and others. It has also got many more features.
Pretty many and the number is increasing. And even more allows OO as optional component. Mind you, for lot of them -- like C++ and ObjectPascal (and to some degree VisualBasic, Delphi) -- they've taken a *structured* programming langauge (like C and Pascal) and just added features for object-orienting. And other more ';pure'; oo-languages -- like Java and C# -- has been so much inspired by such languages (C and C++), thet they're really not very good OO-langauges.
C++ totally lacks a coherent class-hiarchy, although some can optionally be added (like iostream). If you add several optional components, you will get several seperated hiarchies. Java is somewhat better because it does have one hierachy. Unfortunately, the primitive types (char, int, float, ...) are defined *outside* this hierachy. Also, although Java is fully object-oriented, it leans heavely on it's more structured C/C++ ancestory... much is done ';the C way';, rather than ';the oo-way';.
To really sink your teeth into OO and understand the beauty of it, I would recomend other languages. Languages designed as OO from the beginning. A very good choice is SmallTalk, where everything -- incuding the langauge itself -- is part of *one single* large hiarachy. Playing around SmallTalk, will give you a feel for what OO is all about and make you think in the OO-way... this is then something you then can take with you to other ';lesser'; OO-languages, like C++ or Java.
Java is special because it was the first C-derived language with at least somewhat coherent class-hiearchy. It was designed with security in mind. It combines compiling and interperting, by ';compiling'; the program into ';byte-code';, which can then be interperted by the ';Java Virtual Machine';... a rather novell approach. It was designed to allow one to make ';applets'; -- specially designed programs to be downloaded over the net, and inserted into web-pages on your browser -- to run in other applications (like web-browsers).
IMHO, Java is not a very good langauge -- and an even worse OO-language. It's large advantage, is the connectivity with the web. It's slow and sluggish, which is a problem when making stand-alone applications. If you're not intending to make web-applications, there would be little reason to learn Java... Except for the fact that Java has got so much good press, that it has become a langauge employers ask for.How many Object Oriented Programming Languages are there totally?
There are a LOT. Smalltalk was the first back in the seventies and of course C, Cobol and Pascal all have Object-oriented versions (in Pascal's case both Delphi and Modula. The list on the wikipedia has almost a hundred, including extensions and derivatives. It's probably incomplete:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-orie鈥?/a>
What makes Java so special is it was the first object-oriented interpreted language optimized for internet and cross-platform operation. Think of it as midway between C++ and JavaScript and you will begin to get some idea of why it is so special. It's a Goldilocks language which is ';Just Right'; for some people.
There are more than 100 Object Oriented Programming Languages.
Java is the special among them because it is the first purely Object Oriented Programming Language. It is better than C++ (which was developed before Java and which is not pure object oriented language) in terms of memory management (garbage collector) and others. It has also got many more features.
When do images of an object fall on the same retinal locations in the two eyes?
When do images of an object fall on the same retinal locations in the two eyes?
This is a biopsychology question.When do images of an object fall on the same retinal locations in the two eyes?
at (near) infinite distance
an object held at eye level will register slightly to the left of centre in the left eye and right of centre in the right eye
as you move the object further away the image falling on the retina will get closer towards the centre the further away you go
at infinite distance, the lines of sight from both eyes will be parallel and the image will fall on the same location on each retinaWhen do images of an object fall on the same retinal locations in the two eyes?
Never: because one can not see the same object, at the same time, in the same location again: time is always progesssing. The eye is not so fixed like a machine but accounts for different experiences.
This is a biopsychology question.When do images of an object fall on the same retinal locations in the two eyes?
at (near) infinite distance
an object held at eye level will register slightly to the left of centre in the left eye and right of centre in the right eye
as you move the object further away the image falling on the retina will get closer towards the centre the further away you go
at infinite distance, the lines of sight from both eyes will be parallel and the image will fall on the same location on each retinaWhen do images of an object fall on the same retinal locations in the two eyes?
Never: because one can not see the same object, at the same time, in the same location again: time is always progesssing. The eye is not so fixed like a machine but accounts for different experiences.
How do I resize an object in Photoshop cs3 without it getting blurry?
I select the object and use the transform tool to re-size it, but it gets all blurry when I make it bigger. I've tried holding shift down while I re-size, but it doesn't work. I'm just trying to re-size an object, not the entire image. How do I do it and keep it's original sharpness?How do I resize an object in Photoshop cs3 without it getting blurry?
You can only do this if the ORIGINAL image is a Vector image. If it is a JPEG or GIF or PNG then there is nothing you can do except try and find a higher resolution pic.
For instance 1280 x 1024 is sharper than 640 x 480. If you are finding these pics in google images remember to not download the thumbnails you see in the search results, click on the thumbnail, then click on open original image. This will give you its true size. If its big enough, THEN download.How do I resize an object in Photoshop cs3 without it getting blurry?
The problem is you can make big things small, and they will look fine, but you cant really make small things big.
When you have any image, it is a certain size and a certain number of pixels. When you go beyond the original size, all your doing is enlarging the pixels of the image , making it less defined and blurry.
Most people who take a picture or make a picture ususally save the image in the original and largest size they can, and then make it smaller for their needs.
If your picture is taken with a camera, the higher megapixel cameras make bigger pictures that stay sharp at much larger sizes than the smaller megapixel cameras.
If its a drawing or an already existing picture, you can try scanning it at a higher resolution, which may help you get it a little bigger without much blur, but it will also show defects of the physical item more clearly.
You can only do this if the ORIGINAL image is a Vector image. If it is a JPEG or GIF or PNG then there is nothing you can do except try and find a higher resolution pic.
For instance 1280 x 1024 is sharper than 640 x 480. If you are finding these pics in google images remember to not download the thumbnails you see in the search results, click on the thumbnail, then click on open original image. This will give you its true size. If its big enough, THEN download.How do I resize an object in Photoshop cs3 without it getting blurry?
The problem is you can make big things small, and they will look fine, but you cant really make small things big.
When you have any image, it is a certain size and a certain number of pixels. When you go beyond the original size, all your doing is enlarging the pixels of the image , making it less defined and blurry.
Most people who take a picture or make a picture ususally save the image in the original and largest size they can, and then make it smaller for their needs.
If your picture is taken with a camera, the higher megapixel cameras make bigger pictures that stay sharp at much larger sizes than the smaller megapixel cameras.
If its a drawing or an already existing picture, you can try scanning it at a higher resolution, which may help you get it a little bigger without much blur, but it will also show defects of the physical item more clearly.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)