The force required to pull one of the microscope sliding at a constant speed of 0.28 m/s relative to the other is zero.
<h3>
Force required to pull one end at a constant speed</h3>
The force required to pull one of the microscope sliding at a constant speed of 0.28 m/s relative to the other is determined by applying Newton's second law of motion as shown below;
F = ma
where;
- m is mass
- a is acceleration
At a constant speed, the acceleration of the object will be zero.
F = m x 0
F = 0
Thus, the force required to pull one of the microscope sliding at a constant speed of 0.28 m/s relative to the other is zero.
Learn more about constant speed here: brainly.com/question/2681210
Answer:
The weight of measuring stick is 9.8 N
Explanation:
given information:
the mass of the rock, 
= 1 kg
measuring stick, x =1 m
d = 0.25 m
to find the weight of measuring stick, we can use the following equation:
τ = Fd
τ = 0
- 
= 0
F_{r} = the force of the rock
F_{s} = the force of measuring stick
= m g
= 1 kg x 9.8 m/s
= 9.8 N
thus, the weight of measuring stick is 9.8 N
Answer:
it's ii) R is correct while A is incorrect
Explanation:
cuz, both statements are correct but the reason is not the correct reason for the assertion,
If you're listening to a sound that has a steady pitch, and suddenly the
pitch goes up, then you know that two things could have happened:
EITHER ...
-- The person or other source making the sound could have
raised the pitch of the sound being produced.
OR ...
-- The person or other source making the sound could have
started moving toward you.
OR ...
-- both.
Even if the pitch of the sound leaving the source doesn't change,
you would still hear it increase if the source starts moving toward
you. That's the so-called "Doppler effect".
It doesn't matter. If the slides are truly frictionless, then
your kinetic energy at the bottom will be equal to the
potential energy you had at the top, no matter what kind
of route you took getting down.
___________________________
The only way I can think of that it would make a difference
would be if the shallow slide were REALLY REALLY long,
and you didn't have anything to eat all the way down.
Then you might lose some weight while you're on the slide,
and your mass might be less at the bottom than it was at the
top. Then, in order to have the same kinetic energy at the
bottom, you'd need to be going a little bit faster.
But if it takes less than, say, two or three days, to go down the
long, shallow slide, then this effect would probably be too small
to make any difference.
