as per the question charlie runs to the store which is 4 km away
hence the total distance covered [S] is 4 km
he takes 30 minutes to reach the store.
hence the total time taken [t] = 30 minutes=0.5 hour
We have to calculate the average speed.
the average speed[v]= 
=
=8 km/hour
then we have to calculate the total distance traveled by charlie in 1 hour.
the distance covered S= 
=8 km/hour ×1 hour
=8 km
Hence the average speed of charlie is 8 km/hour and he covers a distance of 8 km in 1 hour.
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: 68852 millijoules = 16.46 calories
Explanation:
Given;
Convert 68852 millijoules to calories.
1 calorie = 4.184J = 4184millijoules
Therefore,
1 millijoule = 1/4184 calories
68852 millijoule = 68852 × 1/4184 calories
= 16.46 calories
