Force can be expressed as the product of mass and acceleration. Mathematically, that's F = m(a). Plugging the given into the equation, we have F = (13.5 kg)(9.5 m/s²) = 128.3 kg.m/s² or 128.3 N<span>. </span>
Well, part of 'velocity' is the direction of the motion, and the graph doesn't give us any information about the direction. So the best we'll be able to do is find the average SPEED of the car.
On a distance/time graph, the speed is just the slope of the line. Since this graph is a straight line, it doesn't matter which points along the line you choose ... the answer will always be the same.
Average speed = (distance covered) / (time to cover the distance)
Let's use the ends of the line ... the origin, and the point at the top.
On the left side of the graph, we see the label 'Distance (m)', and I don't know what 'm' stands for. It could be 'miles' or 'meters'.
Anyway, the point at the top of the line shows that the car covered a distance of 25.0 'm' in 10.0 s of time.
Average speed = (25 m) / (10 s)
Average speed = (25/10) m/s
(I'm pretty sure that 'm' means 'meters' and 's' means 'seconds'.)
<span>The answer is Linear Perspective</span>
The light-collecting area of the 10-meter Keck telescope is <u>4 times greater </u>than the light-collecting area of the 5-meter Hale telescope.
Why?
We can calculate the light-collecting area of a telescope by using its diameter/radius. To do that, we can use the following formula:
Now, to know how much greater is the collecting area of the 10-meter keck telescope compared to the collecting area of the 5-meter hale telescope, we need to calculate their light-collecting areas and compare them.
For the 10-meter keck telescope, we have:
For the 5-meter hale telescope, we have:
Now, comparing the areas, we have:
Hence, we have that the light-collecting area of the 10-meter keck telescope is 4 times greater than the light-collecting area of the 5-meter hale telescope.
Have a nice day!