No scientific testing has been made to check for ion transfer, and the claims are purely empirical. Also, nine out of ten people is hardly a representative sample, and the people can claim whatever they want since "feeling" is subjective. This is most likely a pseudoscientific claim, made to sound legitimate to consumers. The best answer is choice D.
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.
Answer:
- a.
- b.
- c.
Explanation:
The spacetime interval 
is given by
please, be aware this is the definition for the signature ( + - - - ), for the signature (- + + + ) the spacetime interval is given by:
.
Lets work with the signature ( + - - - ), and, if needed in the other signature, we can multiply our interval by -1.
<h3>a.</h3>
so
<h3>b.</h3>
so
<h3>c.</h3>
so
Answer:
A wet body has a relatively high concentration of water. When this is transferred to a towel, the large surface area of the towel fabric distributes the water molecules over a much greater surface area, so the relative concentration is lower.
Answer:
22.2 m/s
Explanation:
First, we need to convert km to m by multiplying by 1000. This means that the car traveled 320 000 meters.
Next, we convert hours to minutes by multiplying by 3600 (the number of seconds in an hour). This means that overall, the car traveled 320 000 m in 14 400 seconds.
The average speed can be found by using the equation 
. After substitution, this gives the fraction 
, which reduces to 22 
m/s, or about 22.2 m/s.
