Physics p22

[ahsan99]

ok what ever. We assumed the mass right? But we cant assume the surface area
It always AT ANY COST decreases with a decrease in radius
so lesser resistance

Oh sir..we have to keep density constant!..D=M/V
if V decreases we will have to increase M in order to keep D constant
did u get it now?

 

[Ismail Breiwish]

ok what ever. We assumed the mass right? But we cant assume the surface area
It always AT ANY COST decreases with a decrease in radius
so lesser resistance

Correct, 6(pi)DRv may be a simplification of a longer, more complex formula involving that calculation of the surface area.

 

[ahsan99]

ok what ever. We assumed the mass right? But we cant assume the surface area
It always AT ANY COST decreases with a decrease in radius
so lesser resistance

Correct, 6(pi)DRv may be a simplification of a longer, more complex formula involving that calculation of the surface area.

 

[vaishster]

I TOOK ONLY THE DIST CP TO FIND WAVELENGHT AND I GOT 320NM .... I KNO IT IS WRONG AND THE ANNS IS 640 COZ WE HAV 2 TAKE 2XCP .. HOW MANY MARKS WILL I LOOSE????????

 

[alibutt]

no dude i also got 2.65A m damn sure its ryt because by using krischoff law if we subtract at one side we have 2 subtarct on other side aswell
it was
12-3= i(0.2)+i(3.3)-i(0.1)

 

[BILALrox01]

ok what ever. We assumed the mass right? But we cant assume the surface area
It always AT ANY COST decreases with a decrease in radius
so lesser resistance

Oh sir..we have to keep density constant!..D=M/V
if V decreases we will have to increase M in order to keep D constant
did u get it now?

Obviously dude you have gone bonkers. Take the mass of water as 1 g / cm^3.. Now if volume is decreased to .5 cm^3
1=m/0.5 M =2 ??? No way it becomes .5 g.. As volume decreases mass decreases too.. dumbass

 

[thunderingthunder]

I also got the same wavelength :O: and what power did u calculate. :O: ...the rest of the paper was AWESOME!!alhamdulilah! :Bravo: :good: :Yahoo!:

 

[vaishster]

do u how many marks i will lose if i get 320 nm? please..

 

[BILALrox01]

I guess 1 max 2

 

[BILALrox01]

Anywasy.. graph was above the already plotted one and it ended quicker.

 

[thunderingthunder]

Anywasy.. graph was above the already plotted one and it ended quicker.

How can u say that??the graph we has to plot was of the smaller radius...wont it fall quickly...?? :%)

 

[BILALrox01]

I also got the same wavelength :O: and what power did u calculate. :O: ...the rest of the paper was AWESOME!!alhamdulilah! :Bravo: :good: :Yahoo!:

What was urs?? 30?

 

[Ismail Breiwish]

ok what ever. We assumed the mass right? But we cant assume the surface area
It always AT ANY COST decreases with a decrease in radius
so lesser resistance

Oh sir..we have to keep density constant!..D=M/V
if V decreases we will have to increase M in order to keep D constant
did u get it now?

Are you crazy? You're just playing with numbers now, and you're not making any sense at all.

 

[ahsan99]

Anywasy.. graph was above the already plotted one and it ended quicker.

oh really ..rote learning probably? eh?
According to your so called theory should not it be below?
thumbs up
You said that the mass decreased rite?

 

[Ismail Breiwish]

Anywasy.. graph was above the already plotted one and it ended quicker.

oh really ..rote learning probably? eh?
According to your so called theory should not it be below?
thumbs up
You said that the mass decreased rite?

Wow, just, Wow.

 

[BILALrox01]

Anywasy.. graph was above the already plotted one and it ended quicker.

How can u say that??the graph we has to plot was of the smaller radius...wont it fall quickly...?? :%)

It will fall quickly so its acceleration is highr and thus gratet gradient... It will stop quickly as more velocity equals higher resistance so terminal velocity reached earlier,

 

[thunderingthunder]

I also got the same wavelength :O: and what power did u calculate. :O: ...the rest of the paper was AWESOME!!alhamdulilah! :Bravo: :good: :Yahoo!:

What was urs?? 30?

320 nm!

 

[BILALrox01]

Anywasy.. graph was above the already plotted one and it ended quicker.

oh really ..rote learning probably? eh?
According to your so called theory should not it be below?
thumbs up
You said that the mass decreased rite?

Rote learnin.. really thats the best you can come up with??.. Asshole u didn't even know that mass decrease with decrease in volume, hows that for rote learning.. The mass decreases but so does the resistive force given in the formula. However mass decreases by a power of 3 So F is still large but the mass has decreased by a power of 3.. F=MA f is a little less. M a lot. so A has to be greater.. . so Signor asshole do u understand now.

 

[BILALrox01]

I also got the same wavelength :O: and what power did u calculate. :O: ...the rest of the paper was AWESOME!!alhamdulilah! :Bravo: :good: :Yahoo!:

What was urs?? 30?

320 nm!

NAw.. talking about power.. wavelength was 640.. since the distance was between dark and light not light and light.

 

[thunderingthunder]

Anywasy.. graph was above the already plotted one and it ended quicker.

oh really ..rote learning probably? eh?
According to your so called theory should not it be below?
thumbs up
You said that the mass decreased rite?

Rote learnin.. really thats the best you can come up with??.. Asshole u didn't even know that mass decrease with decrease in volume, hows that for rote learning.. The mass decreases but so does the resistive force given in the formula. However mass decreases by a power of 3 So F is still large but the mass has decreased by a power of 3.. F=MA f is a little less. M a lot. so A has to be greater.. . so Signor asshole do u understand now.

OH!!!please refrain from using such language! :evil: