- 22,817
- 14,874
I rest my case! 
Orodruin said:it is a very poorly worded question.
Orodruin said:it is a very poorly worded question.
More likely, there was some kind of editorial error made when the question was written. Perhaps a prior version contained that phrase and it was determined that there was no correct answer. So they decided to remove it and it never got removed in a latter re-write.kuruman said:The third answer from the top would be the correct answer if the pendulum were not said to be "in free fall". Maybe the author has a different understanding of "free fall" from everybody else.
Theoretically, microgravity on the order of 1-5Orodruin said:Or if the entire pendulum is in free fall, as specified by the problem
About 10 years ago I taught a SAT physics test prep short course for pre-meds. The textbook we used had questions with errors like this peppered throughout. It was a terrible eye-opening experience. Despite that I did it two more times because the pay was outrageously high. Grant money.kuruman said:I entered in the Google search engine the statement of the problem in (quotation marks) and got two hits.
That's what I was afraid of, and thank you for asking. I don't mean to be pushy but, if you get a chance, do you mind asking your instructor what kind of information is conveyed by the "free fall" addition to the statement of the problem? Just in case you see "free fall" again in the future, mind you. I think all of us would like to know what your instructor thinks and says about it.mancity said:I heard back from my instructor today, and the correct solution, as given by my instructor, is to directly apply the formula for the period of a pendulum to get 1.8s.
Ftfyharuspex said:Ah, so "free fall" just means nothingis getting in the way of the pendulum.![]()
No strings attached?haruspex said:Ah, so "free fall" just means nothing is getting in the way of the pendulum.![]()
"way: a road, track, or path for travelling along."kuruman said:No strings attached?