Thread: My physic questions.

  1. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,445
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackDeath View Post
    Elkvis thank you. Answer is Acceleration is constant . WHY ANSWER ACCELERATION IS CONSTANT ?
    2) Which one of the following is wrong for the motion with constant velocity?
    A) Acceleration is constant
    An object with constant velocity has zero acceleration, which is technically constant. However, constant acceleration does not automatically imply zero acceleration, so this is the best answer, even though it's still a bad option.

    B)Average velocity is constant
    C) Instantaneous velocity is constant
    These are both true of objects with constant velocity. An object with constant velocity will have constant average and instantaneous velocity.

    D)Acceleration is 0
    An object with constant velocity is, by definition, not accelerating, so this is also true of an object with constant velocity.
    What can this strange device be?
    When I touch it, it gives forth a sound
    It's got wires that vibrate and give music
    What can this thing be that I found?

  2. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    45
    Wonderful. Thank you so much. May the god with you.

  3. #18
    Unregistered User Yarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,158
    Oh BlackDeath, your posts are always so fun to read.

  4. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    45
    Why ? Do yo like me ?

  5. #20
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    8,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Elkvis View Post
    An object with constant velocity has zero acceleration, which is technically constant.
    Careful. In physics, 0 acceleration is the absence of acceleration. No acceleration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elkvis View Post
    this is the best answer, even though it's still a bad option.
    This is the best answer and is a good option, for the reason above. i.e. A constant acceleration implies the existence of an acceleration. But 0 acceleration means no acceleration. An object with 0 acceleration is moving (or is stationary) with no acceleration at all.

    So this answer is technically the right answer.
    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  6. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,445
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Careful. In physics, 0 acceleration is the absence of acceleration. No acceleration.
    But zero isn't a magic number with special meaning, even with acceleration. Constant zero is still constant. The property doesn't cease to exist, simply because its value is zero.
    What can this strange device be?
    When I touch it, it gives forth a sound
    It's got wires that vibrate and give music
    What can this thing be that I found?

  7. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    45
    3. questions 0,344 ?? Please

  8. #23
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    8,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Elkvis View Post
    But zero isn't a magic number with special meaning, even with acceleration. Constant zero is still constant. The property doesn't cease to exist, simply because its value is zero.
    Don't confuse the mathematical zero with the informal 0 in an informal conversation. The mathematical zero is a constant, or to be more precise, a mathematical literal. But in physics there is no 0 acceleration. That is simply an informal, and in fact quite imprecise, expression.

    Remember, acceleration is represented mathematically not as a literal (or constant if you will), but as a vector. A zero vector (or null vector) is a vector with 0 magnitude and no direction. A null vector represents no acceleration, not the literal 0.
    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  9. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    45
    Mario F. You must creat a forum about physic because you are very good and good guy.

  10. #25
    Registered User MutantJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,665
    Well, you could always say that the magnitude of the vector would be the mathematical 0. Otherwise, it's true, you can't logically equate a vector to a scalar but you can with the magnitude of the vector.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Questions
    By yuyu909 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-08-2010, 12:07 PM
  2. questions....so many questions about random numbers....
    By face_master in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-30-2009, 08:47 AM
  3. Questions..
    By argv in forum C Programming
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-30-2009, 12:14 PM
  4. more questions!!
    By Yoshi in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-14-2002, 09:06 AM