All categories

3 years ago

Newton's First Law is:

Physics

1 answer:

Reptile [31]3 years ago

6 0

Answer:

it's option 2

Explanation:

Newton's first law states that, if a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force

You might be interested in

The liquid mercury in a thermometer expands as it is heated. this is a...

dedylja [7]

Change of State and a Physical Change

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Human reaction times are worsened by alcohol. How much further (in feet) would a drunk driver's car travel before he hits the br

sweet-ann [11.9K]

Answer:

A drunk driver's car travel 49.13 ft further than a sober driver's car, before it hits the brakes

Explanation:

Distance covered by the car after application of brakes, until it stops can be found by using 3rd equation of motion:

2as = Vf² - Vi²

s = (Vf² - Vi²)/2a

where,

Vf = Final Velocity of Car = 0 mi/h

Vi = Initial Velocity of Car = 50 mi/h

a = deceleration of car

s = distance covered

Vf, Vi and a for both drivers is same as per the question. Therefore, distance covered by both car after application of brakes will also be same.

So, the difference in distance covered occurs before application of brakes during response time. Since, the car is in uniform speed before applying brakes. Therefore, following equation shall be used:

s = vt

FOR SOBER DRIVER:

v = (50 mi/h)(1 h/ 3600 s)(5280 ft/mi) = 73.33 ft/s

t = 0.33 s

s = s₁

Therefore,

s₁ = (73.33 ft/s)(0.33 s)

s₁ = 24.2 ft

FOR DRUNK DRIVER:

v = (50 mi/h)(1 h/ 3600 s)(5280 ft/mi) = 73.33 ft/s

t = 1 s

s = s₂

Therefore,

s₂ = (73.33 ft/s)(1 s)

s₂ = 73.33 ft

Now, the distance traveled by drunk driver's car further than sober driver's car is given by:

ΔS = s₂ - s₁

ΔS = 73.33 ft - 24.2 ft

6 0

3 years ago

Using simple language, explain how your demonstration shows the effect of distance on electric forces. Use the terms electric ch

Eddi Din [679]

Explanation:

For a charge concentrated nearly at a point, the electric field is directly proportional to the amount of charge; it is inversely proportional to the square of the distance radially away from the centre of the source charge and depends also upon the nature of the medium.

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Help with both questions I’ll mark brainliest

Evgen [1.6K]

Answer:

(1) A sound wave a mechanical wave because mechanical waves rely on particle interaction to transport their energy, they cannot travel through regions of space that are void of particles. Sound is a mechanical wave and cannot travel through a vacuum. These particle-to-particle, mechanical vibrations of sound conductance qualify sound waves as mechanical waves. Sound energy, or energy associated with the vibrations created by a vibrating source, requires a medium to travel, which makes sound energy a mechanical wave. The answer is(B) it travels in the medium.

(2) An ocean wave is an example of a mechanical transverse wave

The compression is the part of the compressional wave where the particles are crowded together. The rarefaction is the part of the compressional wave where the particles are spread apart. The answer is (C) Compression.

3 0

3 years ago

The summer camps had a field trip from the campus to Fragrance Hill. They traveled at an average speed of 65 km/h in the first 2

ludmilkaskok [199]

Answer:

Explanation:

They traveled this distance in 2 parts, essentially. Part 1 had an average speed for a certain number of hours, part 2 had an average speed for a certain number of hours, and those 2 parts taken together took them a distance of 364 km. In equation form, that looks like this:

km/hr part 1 + km/hr part 2 = 364 km

Now we need to find each part on the left side of that equation. Part 1 first:

We traveled 65 km/hr for 2 hours, so that took us

$65\frac{km}{hr}*2hr$ and canceling out the hour label, we have that in part 1 we got

65(2) = 130 km. Good. Now onto the second part, where our unknown is.

We traveled 78 km/hr the second part for x hours, so that took us

$78\frac{km}{hr}*xhr$ and canceling out the hour label, we have that in part 2 we got

78x km. Now we can fill in the main equation (the one in bold print)

130 km + 78x km = 364 km and subtracting 130 km from both sides:

78x km = 234 km and dividing by 78 km:

x = 3 hours. Part 2 took 3 hours. Part 1 took 2 hours, so the whole trip took 5 hours.

7 0

3 years ago