Recent content by SadPanda6022

So in other words as long as whatever your going through is thin enough, the change in the incident angle/refractory angle is negligible? Where do physicists draw that line? I know it would depend on the precision you are looking for as well but obviously physicists round things off a lot in...

Yes, so then I would think the net deflection would be zero, however, wouldn't it be shifted a degree? Perhaps negligible but the ray would be coming in from the top and be exiting at the same angle then? but would be exiting at a lower distance then it entered. Where the ray comes out would be...

Edit: I have a feeling it has to do with the way the light hits? I am not sure.

Hi! Hope all is well with you BvU, Well it says in the lab manual that it CAN be ignored...but I do not understand why that is?? would it be if the index of refraction is the same as the air before it initially hits? so if n=1 there would be no change... let see so polymethylmethacrylate...

Homework Statement In this lab we used a half-circle container filled with water. Multiple angles are given to measure through the liquid in the container, calculating using snell's equation. However I don't understand why we do not have to calculate for the change in the angle from the plastic...

Hey chet! Yes, yes, I got all of that. I actually think I figured it out. I was thinking for (b) that the equation i needed to formulate was: g(mlead +mwood)=(%)(D_water)(Volume_wood + Volume_lead)g but looking closer It was: g(mlead +mwood)=(%)(D_water)(g)(Volume_wood) +...

1. Homework Statement A block of wood has a mass of 3.47 kg and a density of 628 kg/m3. It is to be loaded with lead (1.13 × 104 kg/m3) so that it will float in water with 0.848 of its volume submerged. What mass of lead is needed if the lead is attached to (a) the top of the wood and (b) the...

Oops, I meant I=mr^2. apologies

Hey guys, quick question. I got confused in some nomenclature between some books and wanted to clarify somehow. A book I have has I=Mk^2 as defining a radius of gyration. Is this the same as I-mr^2? Terminology was just confusing me.Thanks guys.

I was going to come back and give you praise somehow but...I have no idea how forums work as this is the first one I have ever frequented. So I gave you a measly message like. Thanks for the help!

THANKS BY THE WAY!

It took it. So is that typically universal when it comes to gravitational bodies and moving away from them? I mean it makes sense..I move away, I weigh less, so the change in force is always negative as I move away. I am sure you could complicate that if the body being acted on was placed...

I agree with you there... but I have no clue why.. The sample problem linked yields a positive answer.

...not that I know of?? These online assignments are very disheartening...

ok...so I will try 4000, with 0.325??