Answer: 14.1 m/s
Explanation:
We can solve this with the Conservation of Linear Momentum principle, which states the initial momentum 
(before the elastic collision) must be equal to the final momentum 
(after the elastic collision):
(1)
Being:
Where:
is the combined mass of Tubby and Libby with the car
is the velocity of Tubby and Libby with the car before the collision
is the combined mass of Flubby with its car
is the velocity of Flubby with the car before the collision
is the velocity of Tubby and Libby with the car after the collision
is the velocity of Flubby with the car after the collision
So, we have the following:
(2)
Finding :
(3)
(4)
Finally:
Answer:
The new current in the straight wire is 4.98 A
Explanation:
Given;
initial magnetic force on the wire, F₁ = 0.017 N
initial current flowing on the straight wire, I₁ = 1.1 A
When the current in the wire is changed,
new magnetic force on the wire, F₂ = 0.077 N
the new current in the wire, I₂ = ?
Applying equation of magnetic force on conductor;
F₁ = I₁BLsinθ
F₂ = I₂BLsinθ
BLsinθ = F₁/I₁ = F₂/I₂
I₂ = (F₂I₁)/F₁
I₂ = (0.077 x 1.1) / 0.017
I₂ = 4.98 A
Therefore, the new current in the straight wire is 4.98 A
Because they are not supported by the results of any legitimate investigation
that's conducted in accordance with the Scientific Method.
You may say:
"Well then, teach both lines of reasoning,
and let each student decide for himself."
This is suggested by the same people who aren't ready to let their
fourth-grader choose his own clothing, dinner menu, or school.
And it sounds reasonable to a vast mass of citizens who have decided
for them selves that the jury is still out on climate change.
What I'm saying is this:
-- The Scientific Method is a METHOD of investigation that's designed
and developed to remove the effects of human prejudice from the
collection and evaluation of evidence, and to be able to tell bogus
conclusions apart from true ones. It's the most reliable way we have
of asking and answering questions about the natural world.
-- Some questions CAN'T be studied with the Scientific Method,
because experiments generally can't be constructed. These include
matters of religion and faith. Nobody can flatly state that those are
right or wrong. We have no reliable way to say, either way.
The only way to decide is . . . faith.
-- It is illegitimate to take the answer to a question of faith that can't be
derived scientifically, and a scientifically derived conclusion, set them
down next to each other on the same table, and pretend that they can be
compared.
-- When you put them next to each other, say that they're equivalent,
and tell people "go ahead and choose one or the other", the situation
is bogus, the comparison is dishonest, and people who are untrained
or uneducated or immature are not qualified to "choose".
That's why.
This is my opinion. I could be wrong.
Personally, I happen to be a believer. But I cannot prove anything I believe
to anyone else ... not with rational argument, and not with evidence. Those are
elements of the scientific method. They're not applicable, and they don't work,
in matters of faith.
Answer:
The number of oscillation is 36.
Explanation:
Given that
Mass = 280 g
Spring constant = 3.3 N/m
Damping constant 
We need to check the system is under-damped, critical damped and over damped by comparing b with 
Here, b<<
So, the motion is under-damped and will oscillate
The number of oscillation before the amplitude decays to 
of its original value
We need to calculate the time period of one oscillation
The number of oscillation is
Hence, The number of oscillation is 36.
Shadows are created when light is blocked by a solid object, creating a dark spot in the shape of the object on the ground. In order to avoid photons interacting with one's body long enough to create a "gap" between your feet and the beginning of your shadow, you'd have to outrun the speed of light, which is approximately 300 million meters per second, a humanly impossible feat.
Hope this helps! :)
