All categories

3 years ago

Why did friction make it difficult to discover newtons first law of motion

2 answers:

7 0

Friction made it difficult because an object in motion may not always stay in motion due to the friction caused by its movement. For instance, if you roll a ball down a straight platform, it will not go on forever. The friction of the platform and the ball with eventually slow it down and stop it.

Hope this helps!!

V125BC [204]3 years ago

6 0

Because Static Friction and Inertia can be confused, because mass defines how much inertia a body has, that is, the difficulty of putting some acceleration in it. And it's basically the same with friction. Static friction says that, for example, for you to pull a table with your hands, you need to put force (obviously), as measured by Newtons. From the Newton that the table start to accelerate, then there is the static friction.

For example:

To speed up the table, you put five Newtons, and the table does not move. Put ten, still not moving. It puts 11, and it begins to move (accelerate). So the static friction force is 10 Newtons.

You might be interested in

according to newton's third law, when a horse pulls on a cart, the cart pulls back on the horse with an equal force on the horse

Debora [2.8K]

Based on Newton's principle, whenever objects A and B interact with each other, they exert forces upon each other.

When a horse pulls on a cart, the horse exerts a force only to the cart. But that force applies only to the cart, not to the horse.

The cart in turn exerts a force on the horse. But that force applies only to the horse, not the cart also.

There are two forces resulting from this interaction - a force on the horse and a force on the cart. The net force on the cart remains as it was --- a positive force in the direction of the horse's movement. Therefore, the cart begins to accelerate and move.

8 0

3 years ago

Can work done=mass*acceleration*displacement(work=m*a*s)

Airida [17]

no, work is = force * distance or displacement

5 0

3 years ago

Consider a container of oxygen gas at a temperature of 23°C that is 1.00 m tall. Compare the gravitational potential energy of a

Sergio039 [100]

Answer:

Yes, it is reasonable to neglect it.

Explanation:

Hello,

In this case, a single molecule of oxygen weights 32 g (diatomic oxygen) thus, the mass of kilograms is (consider Avogadro's number):

$m=1molec*\frac{1mol}{6.022x10^{23}molec} *\frac{32g}{1mol}*\frac{1kg}{1000g}=5.31x10^{-26}kg$

After that, we compute the potential energy 1.00 m above the reference point:

$U=mhg=5.31x10^{-26}kg*1.00m*9.8\frac{m}{s^2}=5.2x10^{-25}J$

Then, we compute the average kinetic energy at the specified temperature:

$K=\frac{3}{2}\frac{R}{Na}T$

Whereas $N_A$ stands for the Avogadro's number for which we have:

$K=\frac{3}{2} \frac{8.314\frac{J}{mol*K}}{6.022x10^{23}/mol}*(23+273)K\\ \\K=6.13x10^{-21}J$

In such a way, since the average kinetic energy energy is about 12000 times higher than the potential energy, it turns out reasonable to neglect the potential energy.

Regards.

8 0

3 years ago

The most common atom used in fission is

Eduardwww [97]

Answer:

Uranium

Explanation:

5 0

3 years ago

Which of the following is Not true about the noble gases

Alexandra [31]

Noble gases are not highly reactive

3 0

3 years ago