I was going to beg off until tomorrow, but this one is nothing like those others. Why, at only 40km/hr, we can ignore any relativistic correction, and just go with Newton.
To put a finer point on it, let's give the car a direction. Say it's driving North.
a). From the point of view of the car, its driver, and passengers if any, the pole moves past them, heading south, at 40 km/hour .
b). From the point of view of the pole, and any bugs or birds that may be sitting on it at the moment, the car and its contents whiz past them, heading north, at 40 km/hour.
c). A train, steaming North at 80 km/hour on a track that exactly parallels the road, overtakes and passes the car at just about the same time as the drama in (a) and (b) above is unfolding.
The rail motorman, fireman, and conductor all agree on what they have seen. From their point of view, they see the car moving south at 40 km/hr, and the pole moving south at 80 km/hr.
Now follow me here . . .
The car and the pole are both seen to be moving south. BUT ... Since the pole is moving south faster than the car is, it easily overtakes the car, and passes it . . . going south.
That's what everybody on the train sees.
==============================================
Finally ... since you posed this question as having something to do with your fixation on Relativity, there's one more question that needs to be considered before we can put this whole thing away:
You glibly stated in the question that the car is driving along at 40 km/hour ... AS IF we didn't need to know with respect to what, or in whose reference frame. Now I ask you ... was that sloppy or what ? ! ?
Of course, I came along later and did the same thing with the train, but I am not here to make fun of myself ! Only of others.
The point is . . . the whole purpose of this question, obviously, is to get the student accustomed to the concept that speed has no meaning in and of itself, only relative to something else. And if the given speed of the car ...40 km/hour ... was measured relative to anything else but the ground on which it drove, as we assumed it was, then all of the answers in (a) and (b) could have been different.
And now I believe that I have adequately milked this one for 50 points worth.
Differentiation in its simplest of terms means breaking something into small parts. On the other hand, integration is taking those really small parts and gluing them in the right order. In short, these terms are the direct opposite or inverses of each other. The term which can tell you how fast you are going at a moment in time at ones current location is called a derivative. The term on the other hand, which can tell you how far you have travelled if you have been keeping track of your location and your time is what an integral is referred to. It is like differentiation only needs knowledge on the local neighbourhood while integration will need the knowledge on a global knowledge.
<span>The metric
system is the oldest name for the international system of units. The answer is <u>a.
True. </u>SI unit or the international systems of units are based on seven
basic units; the meter, kilogram, second, ampere, Kelvin, candela and mole. All
of these basic units are divided into multiples by a power of ten. For example
in meters, 1 meter is equal to: 1000 millimeter, 100 centimeter, 10 decimeter,
0.1 decameter, 0.01 hectometer, 0.001 kilometer and so on and so forth.</span>
