Can You Answer 5th Grade Science Questions?

[jwoodie]

OK, I misread "simple machine" as "special machine." Simple machine is a term of art invented by Archimedes to describe mechanical advantage. Seems like more of a history question than a science question.

No, knowing who invented the term might be a history question. Knowing what the term means is a science question.

Simple machine describes a thing. Mechanical advantage describes a concept. I prefer the latter, but maybe that is taught after the 5th grade.

 

[longknife]

Wow! Some people have nothing to do but argue about a test?

 

[n0spam4me]

or would you rather argue about the laws of physics? ....... whatever .......

 

[daws101]

And, for those who haven't figured it out, I posted it as a diversion from all the "serious" BS going on in the forum.

and now for something completely different...... see post # 6 of this thread. any discussion here?

you mean this off topic nonsensical bullshit:" on the subject of elementary science:
if you observed something falling at 64% of the acceleration of gravity for 900 ft
how would you describe the force exerted on whatever is under the falling mass?"

 

[Asclepias]

Most people on these forums have a pretty good comprehension of science and I would expect a pretty good result

Take the test @
Quiz Can You Answer 5th Grade Science Questions - TIME

6 out of 8. How I missed the momentum one I don't know. The most common gas got me because I was thinking hydroden.

 

[ogibillm]

& yes, weight is a function of gravity acting on the mass, therefore something with a weight of X on earth would only weigh X/6 on the moon.

so if someone is in freefall, gravity has not stopped acting upon them, has it?

yes, in free fall, gravity is acting upon the falling body, however it is said to be weightless because the falling mass is not expressing that weight downward because it is falling at the acceleration of gravity. If you attempted to weigh a falling object you would have to stop it first. ( and that is a rather different tangent )

again, since weight is the product of the acceleration due to gravity and the mass of an object it exists whether or not I have the ability to measure it.

In fact, the way we measure weight is actually to measure the force needed to counteract it's weight. it just so happens that the two are equal when an object is stationary, or at least not falling.

anyhow, here's a question for you - do you lose weight when submerged in water?

 

[n0spam4me]

& yes, weight is a function of gravity acting on the mass, therefore something with a weight of X on earth would only weigh X/6 on the moon.

so if someone is in freefall, gravity has not stopped acting upon them, has it?

yes, in free fall, gravity is acting upon the falling body, however it is said to be weightless because the falling mass is not expressing that weight downward because it is falling at the acceleration of gravity. If you attempted to weigh a falling object you would have to stop it first. ( and that is a rather different tangent )

again, since weight is the product of the acceleration due to gravity and the mass of an object it exists whether or not I have the ability to measure it.

In fact, the way we measure weight is actually to measure the force needed to counteract it's weight. it just so happens that the two are equal when an object is stationary, or at least not falling.

anyhow, here's a question for you - do you lose weight when submerged in water?

The under water bit is a function of buoyancy and so becomes an apples and oranges comparison.

Do you disagree with the statement that a falling object seen descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity, will express 36% of its weight upon whatever may be under it?

 

[ogibillm]

& yes, weight is a function of gravity acting on the mass, therefore something with a weight of X on earth would only weigh X/6 on the moon.

so if someone is in freefall, gravity has not stopped acting upon them, has it?

yes, in free fall, gravity is acting upon the falling body, however it is said to be weightless because the falling mass is not expressing that weight downward because it is falling at the acceleration of gravity. If you attempted to weigh a falling object you would have to stop it first. ( and that is a rather different tangent )

again, since weight is the product of the acceleration due to gravity and the mass of an object it exists whether or not I have the ability to measure it.

In fact, the way we measure weight is actually to measure the force needed to counteract it's weight. it just so happens that the two are equal when an object is stationary, or at least not falling.

anyhow, here's a question for you - do you lose weight when submerged in water?

The under water bit is a function of buoyancy and so becomes an apples and oranges comparison.

Do you disagree with the statement that a falling object seen descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity, will express 36% of its weight upon whatever may be under it?

so you're talking about the reading on a scale that's falling at 0.64*g with a an object on top? that's a whole different ball game. I thought you were asking what the force would be under .64*gravity of a falling object when it hit the stationary object under neath it.

anyhow, here's the answer to your question, if i've sussed out the meaning.

The scale would read .36*gravity*mass. The actual weight would remain gravity*mass for the object

 

[n0spam4me]

& yes, weight is a function of gravity acting on the mass, therefore something with a weight of X on earth would only weigh X/6 on the moon.

so if someone is in freefall, gravity has not stopped acting upon them, has it?

yes, in free fall, gravity is acting upon the falling body, however it is said to be weightless because the falling mass is not expressing that weight downward because it is falling at the acceleration of gravity. If you attempted to weigh a falling object you would have to stop it first. ( and that is a rather different tangent )

again, since weight is the product of the acceleration due to gravity and the mass of an object it exists whether or not I have the ability to measure it.

In fact, the way we measure weight is actually to measure the force needed to counteract it's weight. it just so happens that the two are equal when an object is stationary, or at least not falling.

anyhow, here's a question for you - do you lose weight when submerged in water?

The under water bit is a function of buoyancy and so becomes an apples and oranges comparison.

Do you disagree with the statement that a falling object seen descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity, will express 36% of its weight upon whatever may be under it?

so you're talking about the reading on a scale that's falling at 0.64*g with a an object on top? that's a whole different ball game. I thought you were asking what the force would be under .64*gravity of a falling object when it hit the stationary object under neath it.

anyhow, here's the answer to your question, if i've sussed out the meaning.

The scale would read .36*gravity*mass. The actual weight would remain gravity*mass for the object

Thank you, this is also in the realm of science, disconnected from
"conspiracy" and therefore I get a straight answer from someone.

 

[jwoodie]

And, for those who haven't figured it out, I posted it as a diversion from all the "serious" BS going on in the forum.

and now for something completely different...... see post # 6 of this thread. any discussion here?

you mean this off topic nonsensical bullshit:" on the subject of elementary science:
if you observed something falling at 64% of the acceleration of gravity for 900 ft
how would you describe the force exerted on whatever is under the falling mass?"

Is "bullshit" the new vocabulary word from South Park?

 

[Care4all]

I stunk, and got only 4 of 8 right!

though once I was given the right answer, I said "ohhhhh, I remember that now" a couple of times.

 

[daws101]

And, for those who haven't figured it out, I posted it as a diversion from all the "serious" BS going on in the forum.

and now for something completely different...... see post # 6 of this thread. any discussion here?

you mean this off topic nonsensical bullshit:" on the subject of elementary science:
if you observed something falling at 64% of the acceleration of gravity for 900 ft
how would you describe the force exerted on whatever is under the falling mass?"

Is "bullshit" the new vocabulary word from South Park?

I wouldn't know haven't watched south park in years..
you spend one hell of alot of time rationalizing this obvious right wing slap at education."I missed "special machine" because I didn't take the time to look up this invented terminology, which seems to have replaced actual learning and understanding in our schools."

 

[jwoodie]

And, for those who haven't figured it out, I posted it as a diversion from all the "serious" BS going on in the forum.

and now for something completely different...... see post # 6 of this thread. any discussion here?

you mean this off topic nonsensical bullshit:" on the subject of elementary science:
if you observed something falling at 64% of the acceleration of gravity for 900 ft
how would you describe the force exerted on whatever is under the falling mass?"

Is "bullshit" the new vocabulary word from South Park?

I wouldn't know haven't watched south park in years..
you spend one hell of alot of time rationalizing this obvious right wing slap at education."I missed "special machine" because I didn't take the time to look up this invented terminology, which seems to have replaced actual learning and understanding in our schools."

Lots of words, little thought.

 

[daws101]

And, for those who haven't figured it out, I posted it as a diversion from all the "serious" BS going on in the forum.

and now for something completely different...... see post # 6 of this thread. any discussion here?

you mean this off topic nonsensical bullshit:" on the subject of elementary science:
if you observed something falling at 64% of the acceleration of gravity for 900 ft
how would you describe the force exerted on whatever is under the falling mass?"

Is "bullshit" the new vocabulary word from South Park?

I wouldn't know haven't watched south park in years..
you spend one hell of alot of time rationalizing this obvious right wing slap at education."I missed "special machine" because I didn't take the time to look up this invented terminology, which seems to have replaced actual learning and understanding in our schools."

Lots of words, little thought.

I'm not the poster who had to make some shit up because they could not be honest and say they either had forgotten or did know the information in the first place. btw none of the terminology was "invented" for the false reasons you alleged it was .

 

[MisterBeale]

Wow! Some people have nothing to do but argue about a test?

Well, it's frustrating. You post a test, and question four has no correct answer.

I answered Hammer, apparently they wanted screw. I KNEW screw was a machine, yet a hammer is a more simple machine, it is a lever. So what gives?

Both wedges and screws qualify as inclined planes. And a pulley is a kind of wheel.

Soooooo, there IS NO CORRECT answer for question four.

Dumb test. Who would have thought, I'm smarter than the person that wrote the test.

Q:
What type of simple machine is a hammer?
A:
A hammer is a lever, one of the six types of simple machines. A lever is defined as any rigid bar that pivots around a fixed point, called a fulcrum, to apply force.

A claw hammer can have two possible fulcrums, depending on how it is used. When driving a nail, the fulcrum is wherever the user holds the handle. If using the hammer to pull the nail back out again, the fulcrum becomes the point where the top of the hammer rests against the surface holding the nail. Other common household levers include crowbars, hoes, scissors and bottle openers.

 

[MisterBeale]

Just goes to show you that they can't even hire people that are as smart as fifth graders to work at CFR propaganda sites. Moral of the story? You shouldn't trust the articles they post at places like TIME if they can't even get their fluff pieces right.

 

[jwoodie]

Wow! Some people have nothing to do but argue about a test?

Well, it's frustrating. You post a test, and question four has no correct answer.

I answered Hammer, apparently they wanted screw. I KNEW screw was a machine, yet a hammer is a more simple machine, it is a lever. So what gives?

Both wedges and screws qualify as inclined planes. And a pulley is a kind of wheel.

Soooooo, there IS NO CORRECT answer for question four.

Dumb test. Who would have thought, I'm smarter than the person that wrote the test.

Q:
What type of simple machine is a hammer?
A:
A hammer is a lever, one of the six types of simple machines. A lever is defined as any rigid bar that pivots around a fixed point, called a fulcrum, to apply force.

A claw hammer can have two possible fulcrums, depending on how it is used. When driving a nail, the fulcrum is wherever the user holds the handle. If using the hammer to pull the nail back out again, the fulcrum becomes the point where the top of the hammer rests against the surface holding the nail. Other common household levers include crowbars, hoes, scissors and bottle openers.

Please don't confuse Daws with facts. He is obviously the product of modern "self esteem" education. Personally, I would rather a 5th grader understand "mechanical advantage" than memorize "simple machine."

 

[daws101]

Wow! Some people have nothing to do but argue about a test?

Well, it's frustrating. You post a test, and question four has no correct answer.

I answered Hammer, apparently they wanted screw. I KNEW screw was a machine, yet a hammer is a more simple machine, it is a lever. So what gives?

Both wedges and screws qualify as inclined planes. And a pulley is a kind of wheel.

Soooooo, there IS NO CORRECT answer for question four.

Dumb test. Who would have thought, I'm smarter than the person that wrote the test.

Q:
What type of simple machine is a hammer?
A:
A hammer is a lever, one of the six types of simple machines. A lever is defined as any rigid bar that pivots around a fixed point, called a fulcrum, to apply force.

A claw hammer can have two possible fulcrums, depending on how it is used. When driving a nail, the fulcrum is wherever the user holds the handle. If using the hammer to pull the nail back out again, the fulcrum becomes the point where the top of the hammer rests against the surface holding the nail. Other common household levers include crowbars, hoes, scissors and bottle openers.

Please don't confuse Daws with facts. He is obviously the product of modern "self esteem" education. Personally, I would rather a 5th grader understand "mechanical advantage" than memorize "simple machine."

false! might be time for you to stop before your ass gets crushed by the crack it's in