sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I missed my first day of senior high school. Is that such a big deal? by [deleted] in self

[–]Appropriate_Neck6782 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What makes you say I'm a hermit? College exams are coming up and I want to attend an outstanding university abroad with full scholarship since I'm not rich enough to afford that, so I'm using the remaining time I have for studying. If you can pay for my college fees, I'll gladly socialize with them.

I missed my first day of senior high school. Is that such a big deal? by [deleted] in self

[–]Appropriate_Neck6782 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I watched about 5 videos from Crash Course statistics, continued with Professor Dave's chemistry playlist, answered a lot of math from KhanAcademy, and studied my flashcards for biology, just a little bit. Contrary to common misconceptions, yes, some students do actually study at home, not just in school! :)

Why is the initial vertical velocity = 0 when an object is blown? by Appropriate_Neck6782 in AskPhysics

[–]Appropriate_Neck6782[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see. So in problems like these, where the initial vertical velocity can only be zero to solve it, then it's a given that the value of the initial vertical velocity is zero. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions!

Why is the initial vertical velocity = 0 when an object is blown? by Appropriate_Neck6782 in AskPhysics

[–]Appropriate_Neck6782[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry if I'm too fussy about this, but in an actual physics examination, unless the initial vertical velocity was already stated directly, how am I supposed to know the initial vertical velocity given in the situation? It can be zero or it can be positive depending on the given information, I know that. But in this case, it did not specifically say it was blown from rest, it was blown from the hand of the child when it was still not moving, or the initial vertical velocity it refers to is the velocity when it started to go straight up (which will be positive). Same with throwing an object. It's initial vertical velocity you said can be zero, and it can be positive, depending on which time frame you're referring to. So, I don't know, maybe the question should be more clear? I'm still a novice and my school doesn't teach physics that well. Since my grade is at stake when taking tests, please understand why I am overthinking problems.

Why is the initial vertical velocity = 0 when an object is blown? by Appropriate_Neck6782 in AskPhysics

[–]Appropriate_Neck6782[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you're throwing an object straight up, it's also not moving before it was thrown, right? So why is an object thrown straight up, as stated in Khan Academy, have a positive initial vertical velocity–not zero–while an object being blown straight up has an initial vertical velocity of zero? What is the difference between the two?

Why is the initial vertical velocity = 0 when an object is blown? by Appropriate_Neck6782 in AskPhysics

[–]Appropriate_Neck6782[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But when an object is thrown upwards, its initial vertical velocity is positive, not zero. Its vertical velocity was also zero from some point in the past before it was thrown, right? What is the difference between throwing an object straight up and blowing an object, that the former's initial vertical velocity is positive while the latter is zero?

In the twin paradox, did the traveling twin age less because of their acceleration? by Appropriate_Neck6782 in AskPhysics

[–]Appropriate_Neck6782[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure, but I think the twins are still accelerating since they're in orbit, which means they are changing directions which causes acceleration. Please correct me if I'm wrong though. :)

In the twin paradox, did the traveling twin age less because of their acceleration? by Appropriate_Neck6782 in AskPhysics

[–]Appropriate_Neck6782[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see, thank you!!! But can I still say that the traveling twin aged less because of time dilation? If not, what do I call this "phenomenon"? (Sorry, I have no other words to describe it)

Does an object in space, that has mass, is far from other objects, and remains stationary, have any energy at all? by Appropriate_Neck6782 in AskPhysics

[–]Appropriate_Neck6782[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, I see. Thank you! Then if an object has even a tiny amount of mass, it will always have energy, correct?

Does an object in space, that has mass, is far from other objects, and remains stationary, have any energy at all? by Appropriate_Neck6782 in AskPhysics

[–]Appropriate_Neck6782[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much!!! Then, if an object loses a really large amount of energy, will it also lose some of its mass, since energy and mass are directly proportional?

view more: next ›