Recent content by essecks

You don't really sound like you like physics at all, to be honest.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=376191 Pretty interesting thread. (Not sure if I got the right thread, there's heaps of them. But you get the idea.)

You may have input "x=2". Been a few years since I used my TI-89, but I think that happened to me a lot.

Isn't 1G 9.8 ms-2?

Like LearningMath said, all of these problems seem to be prime factorisation problems (hence the name). So you're just looking for common factors in all of the answers. If you don't know what prime factorization is, you can either check http://www.mathsisfun.com/prime-factorization.html" or...

What is happening to the energy of the photons of light?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_%28vector%29" is the distance from A to B, not the distance you traveled in getting there.

What's your previous attempts though? Did you try breaking it down into the x- and y-components? Even a sit down with a sketch to familiarise yourself with the problem helps. :smile:

In some ways, yes - but you don't know where you started initially with the velocity. In your example graph (assuming the line is zero and each little box is 1 m/s/s high, that scale is a bit off), you'd get: 60 - 48 + 16 = +28 m/s So you'd be 28 m/s faster than what you started at. But...

Without knowing the initial velocity, you can't technically know the velocity of the object. What you CAN know is the overall change in velocity, which as kuruman explained is adding / subtracting the area under the curve depending on whether it's positive/negative. :smile:

That is a key part of the solution. If the angles are the same, what does that say about the vertical distances (with regard to each other)?

That diagram seems to have it. Now just think about how you'd be able to figure out the height, and the measurements of that mirror? :) [edit] also, the picture obviously worked for me too :)

Doesn't seem like a very nice problem, because hang-gliders are assumed to actually fly and glide, instead of "running and plummeting".

Try making one of the dots directly up and one to the side, and check all of the statements again - the question didn't say that they're going to be in the same direction. :smile:

sqrt(6) is correct for this, but you have to take into account the radii of the asteroids too (0.3 and 0.1) so the separation is then ~2.45-0.3-0.1