anonymous
  • anonymous
contrast volume and mass
Physics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
schrodinger
  • schrodinger
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
@Peaches15
anonymous
  • anonymous
@welshfella @Leong @oldrin.bataku
anonymous
  • anonymous
sr, i don't know the answers for this :(

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

IrishBoy123
  • IrishBoy123
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fence-post+%20tall.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Volume;It's three dimensional quantity usually enclosed by visible boundaries or otherwise imaginary.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Volume is the physical size/dimensions of an object. The space that it fills. The mass of an object is is an actual measure of the quantity of matter. For instance a gas has a lot of empty space, and one could consider it's volume as being the smallest region in which all the gas of interest is contained. No matter what you do you will still have empty space in that region in addition to the individual molecules/atoms Whereas the mass of the gas is direct measure of the quantity of matter present in that region (i.e. assuming a pure gas consisting only of molecules of a single type the "mass of the gas" would be the number of molecules (N) in the region times the mass of the individual molecule).
anonymous
  • anonymous
Also mass increases with the speed. The mass however does not change depending on the gravitational force. However mass and weight are arbitrary terms in conversational English such that people misuse them;(
anonymous
  • anonymous
This is a paradox as mass is measured using spring scale which inevitably involves force due to gravity towards the center of earth..... This renders assigning mass to any given object using such means virtually all inaccurate.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Ahh good point robert but volume also changes with speed too. As one increases in speed, the length of an object (in the direction of its motion also contracts (to an outside observer)
anonymous
  • anonymous
Motion is relative so yeah no such thing as movement exists without an observer.
anonymous
  • anonymous
For instance if I am travelling in a cube at 0.9c in the x direction then to an outside observer that dimension will appear contracted by a factor \[\sqrt{1-(\frac{ v }{ c })^{2}} = \sqrt{1-(0.9)^{2}} = 0.435\] So if my cube is of dimension 1m x 1m x 1m, then then to an outside observer it will appear as 1m x 1m x 0.435m; and thus my volume has decreased.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Quite curious when you think about it but Einstein was a brilliant guy.
anonymous
  • anonymous
If you want a true mind teaser consider a spinning disk that (dont worry about the accelerations :) ) is spinning at 0.9c
anonymous
  • anonymous
Any point on the circumference of the disk is parallel to the motion and thus should contract; however the radius of the disk is perpendicular to the motion and should stay the same..... so what should happen?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Answer.... impossible the disk couldn't get there it would fly apart (cop out answer for I actually dont know :p i)
anonymous
  • anonymous
@Robert136 @PlasmaFuzer U guys are smart
anonymous
  • anonymous
I am sure you can combine the centripetal acceleration
anonymous
  • anonymous
By assuming that disk is spinning at 0.9C moving at 0.9C it would virtually at one point exceed the speed of light....if such disk exists.....
anonymous
  • anonymous
Ty peaches but I would argue I am just interested in these things and my curiosity drives me to not just think about these things because i need to pass a class or get some grade.... but because I am actually fascinated by it.... so what I know came with work not some in born ability.... remember that
anonymous
  • anonymous
So in that grain the best advice I could give is get interested.... its the best... only way to really learn
anonymous
  • anonymous
I am sure we would see the disk being in such distortion
anonymous
  • anonymous
I can't agree more. Everyone is born with the same brain, but depending on the application of it efficiency and database within it differ from person to person
anonymous
  • anonymous
I always opposed the idea of seeing education as something to study for but rather something with which to be enthralled and entertained
anonymous
  • anonymous
@Robert136 @PlasmaFuzer well Gn im tired I had been helping ppl with der math all night so ya bye
anonymous
  • anonymous
People would advance in their knowledge of science if our contemporary education abandoned its approach... remember that they exist to deintellectualize rather than anything else and usually kills the conceptual reasoning by over-exposure to root memorization which encourages manifestation of Obsessive Compulsive behavior(for root memorization does not involve reason but rather act of impulse induced by authority over its necessity)
anonymous
  • anonymous
Good point Robert no such disk exists for that very reason.... since the centripetal force m v^2 / r would become enormous very near the axel if a point on the edge of the disk were moving at that speed... but really the accelerations to get the disk to that point would be even the bigger issue (which is why I slyly swept them under the rug as I was giving that example ;) )
anonymous
  • anonymous
Yea totally agree... funny that I am actually pretty bad a rote memorization and have issues all the time with some things (even quite basic).... fortunately I have a number of tools under my belt now that I can employ to get me to where I need to be if I cant quite remember the exact relations
anonymous
  • anonymous
I don't think we can build a disk that can withstand such centripetal acceleration...they would disintegrate with heat too...they would then in be plasma state and beyond nearing non gravity state probably
anonymous
  • anonymous
I know its a thought experiment to see how the ideas stack up against idealized mechanical devices... clearly it would fail
anonymous
  • anonymous
Oh yes I think I suffer from mild memory issue but I can automatically memorize things that are part of my logical reasoning.... like I don't have problem with memorizing terminology in physics if that theory I am learning is founded on it
anonymous
  • anonymous
Ideals are not so easy to achieve tho
anonymous
  • anonymous
Hypothesis yet to be proven are 90% impossible because such energy required to empirically prove it doesn't exist or out of our reach.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Unless we harness the computer utility in our neurons I think it's impossible to also harness the physics to more advanced level than we already have
anonymous
  • anonymous
human brains are incapacitated for some reason
anonymous
  • anonymous
somehow pleasure is derived from non-enhancing activities of our aptitude or academic skills
anonymous
  • anonymous
If, a human brain can be rewire to derive pleasure from such practice as physics and math, our scientific advance will be greater than we can ever imagine.
anonymous
  • anonymous
If we know what constitutes a matter from atomic level, then we should be able to know what chemical interaction makes a specific piece of memory and somehow implant them..
anonymous
  • anonymous
For sure, but I think you're missing my point on the disk. It is meant to serve as nothing more than a thought experiment. Its funny how a paradox arises if we neglect the material considerations. Of course no such paradox exists as the bonds that hold together material exist as a result of the electromagnetic force. A force which propagate at the speed of light. Such a situation could never exist quite literally because charges could not interact "in time" to avoid their flying apart.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Right. It's merely hypothetical
anonymous
  • anonymous
Well that would be quite amazing if we were able to pull off something like that; however I think the teamwork that comes as an inevitability makes up for our own individual shortcomings.
anonymous
  • anonymous
An inevitability in the sense that we work in labs or institutions with like minded people working on similar problems.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Most definitely. Exchange of ideas is a good way to improve our comprehension
anonymous
  • anonymous
And trying to teach someone an idea is the BEST way to learn it might I add.
anonymous
  • anonymous
:D no debate just friendly discussion
anonymous
  • anonymous
Maybe we might be able to know the chemical/biological composites to manifest a consciousness. At that consciousness we apply all of our precedent knowledge to cut the work required to reach the state of "standing on the shoulders of giants" if you will
anonymous
  • anonymous
Perhaps but in such a world the unique insight and creativity necessary for breakthroughs would be rendered irrelevant. It would be a lot quicker... but it would take all of the fun and mistique away... such a world seems quite dull to me.
anonymous
  • anonymous
cya :D :D
anonymous
  • anonymous
Either leave physics as intellectual challenge for humans or complete the game and move further.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Why dull if parallel universes happened to be traversable? In such world everything you can imagine will be at your disposal
anonymous
  • anonymous
p.s rewinding time if in need of rectification
anonymous
  • anonymous
Perhaps, but who is to say we wouldn't accomplish that on our own. Besides if you consider how computers solve problems, even if we were able to create a consciousness it wouldn't automatically know how to solve problems. It has to learn, just like we have to learn. So in short it is no panacea if/when it happens, merely the next step in perhaps a near infinite progression as we asymptotically approach what is actually knowable. But that is just my opinion.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Anyways Robert it has been fun but I need to sign off now its getting late. I most likely will see you around here again. Till then keep lovin physics :D
anonymous
  • anonymous
Yes most definitely you are few years ahead of me so will definitely be recapping your learned concepts which I am learning this year so looking forward to sharing insights with you;) For the time begin thanks so much for your esoteric views of physics and the like.
anonymous
  • anonymous
No problem :D goodnight
anonymous
  • anonymous
See you later;)
sohailiftikhar
  • sohailiftikhar
Wow nice conservation

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.