Physics questions

• Chockeh wrote on 2011-01-16 02:43
  I'll post more as they come along...
  
  Is this correct?
  
  [FONT=&quot]â–³[/FONT]t (s)
  [FONT=&quot]â–³s (cm)[/FONT]
  a = 2 [FONT=&quot]â–³s/â–³t^2 si v[/FONT][FONT=&quot]i [/FONT][FONT=&quot]est 0[/FONT]
  
  0.0s
  0.0cm
  0 cm/s^2
  
  0.1s
  3.0cm
  600 cm/s^2 = 2 X 3.0/0.1^2
  
  0.2s
  7.6cm
  380 cm/s^2= 2 X 7.6/0.2^2
  
  0.3s
  14.2cm
  315.5 cm/s^2 = 2 X 14.2/0.3^2
  
  0.4
  22.0
  275 cm/s^2 = 2 X 22.0/0.4^2
  
  0.5s
  31.0 cm
  248 cm/s^2 = 2 X 31.0/0.5^2
  
  0.6s
  43.8cm
  243 cm/s^2 = 2 X 43.8/0.6^2
  
  0.7s
  56.1cm
  229 cm/s ^2 = 2 X 56.1/0.7^2
  
  Is there a way to make all this into 1 equation?
• Chockeh wrote on 2011-01-16 16:45
  Bump?
• Q wrote on 2011-01-16 18:51
  EDIT: nvm i figured out what you're doing. It doesn't look like anything is wrong value-wise...but does your teacher go OCD on sig figs? if so then you do have some sig fig error :o
• Chockeh wrote on 2011-01-16 18:58
  Sorry, not quite sure what OCD or sig figs means D:!
• Q wrote on 2011-01-16 19:10

  Quote from Chockeh;292561:

  Sorry, not quite sure what OCD or sig figs means D:!

  
  
  er is he like uber epic strict on perfection owo;;;? and sig figs are significant figures. if you havent learned about it yet then i dont think you will need it though o-o;
• Chockeh wrote on 2011-01-17 04:02
  Would this graphic be okay?
  
  

  [Image: http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr82/kev_619_29/graph1.jpg]

  
  
  And how do we explain that an object's acceleration is inversely proportional to its mass?
• Lan wrote on 2011-01-17 04:03
  a=1/m?
• Chockeh wrote on 2011-01-17 04:07
  Well, with my calculations that would make something like...
  
  600cm/s^2 = 1 / 1.2kg
  
  And the force of this experiment would be 1.96N I think.
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2011-01-17 04:08

  Quote from yoshii;292567:

  er is he like uber epic strict on perfection owo;;;? and sig figs are significant figures. if you havent learned about it yet then i dont think you will need it though o-o;

  
  
  you don't need sig figs in physics
  because everything is ideal
• Q wrote on 2011-01-17 04:15

  Quote from BobYoMeowMeow;293216:

  you don't need sig figs in physics
  because everything is ideal

  
  
  what. i need sig figs for every problem i do in physics O_O. I've came by close to no physics problem that require calculations and didn't require sig figs owo;;;
• Chockeh wrote on 2011-01-17 04:18
  I have a feeling that my numbers are wrong.
• Q wrote on 2011-01-17 04:35
  i don't think your numbers are wrong...but the data is weird ish...cuz apparently, the car/object accelerates greatly then starts decelerating right afterwards owo;;; so i guess your graph should be write.
  
  For calculating how acceleration is inversely proportionial to mass:
  
  Force = F
  Mass = M
  Acceleration = a
  
  -F = Ma
  -divide both side by M
  F/M = (Ma)/M
  -M cancels on left side
  -left with:
  F/M = a
• Chockeh wrote on 2011-01-17 04:42
  In that case...
  It should be something like
  F = 0.2kg X 9.8N/kg
  1.96N / 1.2KG = a
  a = 1.63cm^2 (?)
  I wonder which acceleration I should compare it to in my first post since its all 1.2kg...
  Sorry if I'm incredibly stupid.
• Q wrote on 2011-01-17 04:54
  er for you F = 0.2kg X 9.8N/kg, is 0.2 suppose to be 1.2 o-O?
  
  if 0.2 is intentional, then your second equation's mass should be 0.2, giving you a = 9.8.
  
  and er how are you suppose to compare this to your original data?
• Chockeh wrote on 2011-01-17 05:02

  Quote from yoshii;293334:

  er for you F = 0.2kg X 9.8N/kg, is 0.2 suppose to be 1.2 o-O?
  
  if 0.2 is intentional, then your second equation's mass should be 0.2, giving you a = 9.8.
  

  
  
  

  [Image: http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr82/kev_619_29/Untitled123.jpg]

  
  
  

  and er how are you suppose to compare this to your original data?

  Not sure, I somehow need to show that the acceleration of an object is inversely proportional to its mass with the experiment.
  
  EDIT: So the acceleration is 1.96N / 0.2kg = 9.8 cm/s^2? Though I guess I got it wrong and it's not cm/s^2.