Answer:
Explanation:
Galileo's famous argument against the Aristotle's theory of falling bodies goes like this. "Let's say heavy objects do fall faster than light ones. Then it seems the heavier weight will fall with the lighter weight acting, as it were, a bit like a parachute. In that case, the two balls will together fall more slowly than the heavy weight would on its own. On the other hand, once the two weights are tied together and held out over the parapet, they have effectively combined their weights, becoming one greater weight... they must therefore fall even faster than the heavy weight would on its own." Contradiction. Hence weight has no effect on falling rates.
Some philosophers are very fond of this argument. Gendler uses it as a prototypical example of how "reasoning about particular entities within the context of an imaginary scenario can lead to rationally justified conclusions". Snooks goes further saying "it is striking that one leaves the falling balls example with something approaching certainty for its outcome". And Brown goes all the way and claims that Aristotle's theory is "self-contradictory", and we gain a priori knowledge here. The argument does give off that flavor of "synthetic a priori" reasoning, as in geometry but without images. But is it a proof or a fallacy? Even Gendler admits that some "obvious" premises are missing, and Atkinson even calls it a "non-sequitur" for similar reasons. But Galileo's logic is not questioned it seems. Shouldn't it be?
2,450 miles. you have to do 700•3.5= 2,450
Answer:
Explanation:
This problem is all about torque. The "rules" are that in order for a system to be in rotational equilibrium, the sum of the torques on the system have to equal 0 (in other words, they have to equal each other {cancel each other out}). The equation for torque is
τ = F⊥r where τ is torque, F⊥ is the perpendicular force, and r is the lever arm length in meters. We also have to understand that in general Forces moving clockwise are negative and Forces moving counterclockwise are positive. Now we're ready for the problem:
A. The counterclockwise torque:
τ = 300(3) so
τ = 900N*m
B. The clockwise torque:
τ = -450(2.5) so
τ = -1100N*m
C. Obviously the system is not in roational equilibrium because one side is experiencing a greater torque than the other. This system will move clockwise as it currently exists.
D. In order for the system to be in rotational equilibrium, we have to move Bob's location from the fulcrum. Let's see to where.
The torques have to be the same on both sides of the fulcrum; mathematically, that looks like this:
F⊥r = F⊥r Filling in:
300(3) = 450r and
900 = 450r so
2 = r. This means that Bob will have to move closer to the fulcrum by a half of a meter to 2 meters from the fulcrum in order for the system to be in balance.
Isn't this so much fun?!
Answer:
The initial angular speed of the CD is equal to 14.73 rad/s.
Explanation:
Given that,
Angular displacement, 
Final angular speed, 
The acceleration of the CD,
We need to find the initial angular speed of the CD. Using third equation of kinematics to find it such that,
Put all the values,
So, the initial angular speed of the CD is equal to 14.73 rad/s.
velocity=displacement/time
displacement=∆velocity x ∆time
displacement=4x4
16m
