Answer:
Not sure about the answer but I think its roller coaster
Explanation:
Mmm tricky.
Constant velocity means there's no net force acting on the puck!
So if there's no friction or air drag force to slow it down, you don't need any force to keep that puck moving.
Once it's in motion, it stays in motion.
(Mmm isn't that a Law of Newton?)
:D
Answer:
(A) 0.54 kg.m^{2}
(B) 0.0156 N
Explanation:
from the question you would notice that there are some missing details, using search engines you can find similar questions online here 'https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/questions-and-answers/small-ball-mass-120-kg-mounted-one-end-rod-0860-m-long-negligible-mass-system-rotates-hori-q7245149'
here is the complete question:
A small ball with mass 1.20 kg is mounted on one end of a rod 0.860 m long and of negligible mass. The system rotates in a horizontal circle about the other end of the rod at 5100 rev/min. (a) Calculate the rotational inertia of the system about the axis of rotation. (b) There is an air drag of 2.60 x 10^{-2} N on the ball, directed opposite its motion. What torque must be applied to the system to keep it rotating at constant speed?.
solution
mass of the ball (m) = 1.5 kg
length of the rod (L) = 0.6 m
angular velocity (ω) = 4900 rpm
air drag (F) = 2.60 x 10^{-2} N = 0.026 N
(take note that values from the original question are used, with the exception of the air drag which was not in the original question)
(A) because the rod is mass less, the rotational inertia of the system is the rotational inertia of the rod about the other end, hence rotational inertia =
where m = mass of ball and L = length of rod
= 
= 0.54 kg.m^{2}
(B) The torque that must be applied to keep the ball in motion at constant speed = FLsin90
= 0.026 x 0.6 x sin 90 = 0.0156 N
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.
