/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 724 KB, 1944x2592, IMG_20151113_181630J.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Nov 13 18:39:27 2015 No.7658100 [Reply] [Original]

What the actual fuck.

This question is the most fucked question I have ever seen.

!)
>Magnitude of 10N ......pull crate with constant speed.

The Force is not pulling it if it is constant speed there would be another force to cancel it out.

2) Either that or the the net force is 10N and it is NOT at a constant speed.

3) Forgetting all that and pretending that it is NOT at a constant speed Number One asks for Force Applied NOT net force so it is not simply 10N times 3meters (That was the correct answer in class) You would need to add the Friction plus the net of 10N to get the force applied to get a final answer of around 180J.

4) Number 4 is number 2 (made us cross it out for some other reason)

5) For number five you contradict the answers to number 1 by saying it is Zero. In line with previous questions It would be 10N.

6) Same thing as number 5 but in the form or work All these contradictions.

All these contradictions on a Question that makes no sense in it's entierdy.

I know why my teacher revised this because he probably though the question was to hard for the dumbshits in my class but still wtf. happened.........

I tried explaining this to him and other students but they would't listen or just didn't understand anything ....

Wtf I can't be the only one in my class to understand net forces /sci wtffff?
Am I really arrogant or am I really correct?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 18:41:42 2015 No.7658105 >>7658100 >The Force is not pulling it if it is constant speed there would be another force to cancel it out. > can't into gravity

Anonymous Fri Nov 13 18:49:35 2015 No.7658122

>>7658105
What?

The question stated it is moving at a constant speed with a Net force of 10 actiing on it.The friction is gravity and that equals 50N so a net force of 10N would mean that the total applied force would be 60N the extra force I stated was about another 10N pulling it down so the There is no net force acting on it at all and it can move at a constant Velocity.

Lack of net force doesn't mean there is no Velocity is just means it is at a constant speed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 18:55:34 2015 No.7658131 I dont have time to teach you. Just google box on a ramp forces You will soon find an answer

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 18:56:41 2015 No.7658132 >>7658100 Friction is not included in the applied force. The applied force is 10 N. This is said in the first paragraph of the question. Your confusing might come from the fact that the 10 N force is not explicitly called the applied force.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 18:58:15 2015 No.7658135 holy fuck. i knew /sci/ was dumb but shit. this is next level retarded. how the fuck??

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 19:01:25 2015 No.7658138 >>7658100 M8, I think you're retarded

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 19:02:30 2015 No.7658140 >>7658132 If the applied force is 10N then It wouldn't the box be falling down the ramp at 40N? Since the total Gravitational force falling down the ramp is 50N.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 19:13:39 2015 No.7658154 File: 28 KB, 320x320, ....................jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7658135 >>7658138 How.Does.A.Object.Have.Constant Velocity.With.A.Net.Force? How.Does.A.10N.Apllied Force.Overcome.50N.Gravitational.force.?

Anonymous Fri Nov 13 19:14:27 2015 No.7658155

>>7658140
Don't worry, you aren't wrong. /sci/ just isn't doing the math and assuming you're retarded. I think it may have something to do with the static friction being equal to the force of gravity, but then once the 10 N is applied it cancels out the gravitational force? I don't fucking know, but I would just use 10 N for number 1 and 50 N for number 2, the questions asked aren't really requiring you to figure out which way the box will move so the inconsistancies dont really matter

Anonymous Fri Nov 13 19:26:57 2015 No.7658173
File: 815 KB, 680x659, 1446646029228.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7658155
Well in this case it would be Kinetic friction since the box is apparently moving but they gave no coefficient of friction or frictional force so we have no way of knowing what it is. So i am assuming "frictional force" here is the Gravitational force.

(Yeah I know we are still in baby math mode because the kids in my class don't understand jack shit)

But yeah if you assuming that 10N is the applied force then it would NOT be going up it would be "falling"

So the initial question contradicts itself either way really.

But putting that aside then the net force would be 40Net down and Number 5 would not be 0 and number 6 would not be 0 (We actUALLY HAVE no WAY OF KNOWING 6) because the problem stated 3meaters up but it is moving down in this situation............

You see what I am getting at m8? There is no way to make this make actual sense in the real world even though my teacher says it does........

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 19:29:22 2015 No.7658174 >>7658154 SINE.and.COSINE

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 19:30:39 2015 No.7658175 >>7658154 >How.Does.A.Object.Have.Constant Velocity.With.A.Net.Force? There is no net force, your answer to question 5 and 6 is correct. >How.Does.A.10N.Apllied Force.Overcome.50N.Gravitational.force.? This is indeed an error in the question.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 19:32:33 2015 No.7658178 File: 16 KB, 488x305, Howthefuckdidyousurvivechildhood.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7658174 I have no word's. I really hope you are trolling.

Anonymous Fri Nov 13 19:41:21 2015 No.7658187
File: 115 KB, 1024x768, 1437690483875.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7658175
They are not my answers bro this question literally has no answers for anything other than 2 and 3.

Yeah man.

You can either look at it with 10N being a Net force up but then 1 2 5 and 6 would be wrong and it would NOT be moving at a constant speed.

Or as an applied force of 10N but then 1 and and 6 would still be wrong since it if falling at 40N and you wouldn't even know how to find 6.

Or as a Constant speed bu then the net force would be 0 and the applied force would be 50N to cancel out with gravity and 1 2 5 and 6 would be wrong (since it doesn't move from a Force at all)
W=Fd

Youuuu seee thisss shirtttttt m8? What.the.actual.fuck.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 19:48:42 2015 No.7658196 >>7658100 >Comic Sans MS

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 19:53:18 2015 No.7658199 >>7658196 Came here to post this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 19:56:10 2015 No.7658205 File: 1.65 MB, 300x196, 1433099680587.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >No sence >sence

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 19:58:49 2015 No.7658211 case no friction: F=mgsin(30) g=F/(m*sin(30)) g=10N/5kg=2N/kg

Anonymous Fri Nov 13 20:00:21 2015 No.7658217
File: 661 KB, 245x179, Juststop.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7658205
Yeah I know bro........ I wasn't going to go through the work of taking another pic and re-posting because I don't have a negative Ego where I actually care what a friggin Grammar Nazi thinks about me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 20:01:56 2015 No.7658221 File: 249 KB, 358x358, 1423860190455.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7658211

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 20:03:27 2015 No.7658224 >>7658196 >>7658199 The text my teacher uses? All teachers use this text at my school bro........

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 20:10:09 2015 No.7658236 >>7658224 no wonder the question is wrong

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 20:24:12 2015 No.7658253 >>7658154 Because. Gravity. Is. Constantly. Applied. To. The. Object. Applied. Forces. Don't. Always. Cause. Constant. Acceleration.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 20:28:26 2015 No.7658257 >>7658253 are you retarded? He said net force not applied force, and you did nothing to answer how 10 N overcomes 50 N?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 20:34:49 2015 No.7658261 >>7658122 >with a Net force of 10 actiing on Nope. Try reading the question again. The word "net" is nowhere in it.

Anonymous Fri Nov 13 20:35:07 2015 No.7658262
File: 858 KB, 240x228, 1438435685026.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7658253
No.shit.sherlock.

Did.you.even.read.the.thread?

If gravity is constantly applied tot he object there would have to be another force cancelling out the gravity for it to not accelerate therefor the 10N applied is wrong and the Applied force would have to be 50N to cancel it out so there is not net force and it's speed can be constant.So the question contradicts itself and answer 1 and 2 would be wrong.
>Applied. Forces. Don't. Always. Cause. Constant. Acceleration.

No shit It's when they have a Net force that they do and the only way for there to not be a net force would have to be for the applied force to be 50N like I said before.

>Mfw the majority of /sci is literally retarded as fuck, and can't even figure out FBD and Forces!

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 20:36:37 2015 No.7658263 >>7658261 see >>7658262 Even if it isn't net and it is applied force the question still contradicts.

anonymous Fri Nov 13 20:46:53 2015 No.7658268

>>7658100
oh hell, that school obviously failed to educate. that question is not contradictory, the problem is geometrically correctly illustrated in print, practically solved, plus plenty of leading questions. are you guys drinking wood alcohol before going to class ?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 13 20:52:13 2015 No.7658277 >>7658268 Pleas 1) Re-read question 2) or stop trolling 3) or kill self

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 01:38:27 2015 No.7658547

>>7658277
>>7658100
Constant speed means that the net force is 0.
That is, F+Fn+Fu+Fk=0. (where + is the vector sum, not the sum of magnitudes)
Choose coordinates such that the x axis is parallel to F and the y axis is parallel to Fn. Resolve Fu into perpindicular force vectors along these two axes. Then Fn+Fu_y=0, F+Fu_x+Fk=0. Or, in terms of their magnitudes, |F|=|Fu_x|+|Fk|
But the magnitude of kinetic friction is proportional to the normal force, so let |Fk|=a|Fn|=a|Fu_y| with coefficient of kinetic friction a. Then |F|=|Fu_x|+a|Fu_y|.

The problem is not contradictory. It should be clear that every possible coefficient of friction gives a force F that will move the block at constant velocity.

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 08:07:43 2015 No.7658832

>>7658100

On the Moon, motion "up the ramp" would be possible:

F=10N, m=10kg, an=30° and g=1.6N/kg
F - Fd - Ff = 0
Fd=m*g*sin(30)=8N
Ff=µ*m*g*cos(30)=2N
µ=2/(10*1.6*0.866)=0.144

On Earth (mentioned in 2.) only downhill motion is possible:

F=10N, m=10kg, an=30° and g=9.8N/kg
F - Fd + Ff = 0
Fd=m*g*sin(30)=49N
Ff=µ*m*g*cos(30)=39N
µ=39/(10*9.8*0.866)=0.46

Without force F, µ=tan(30)=0.577 leads to constant downhill motion independent of g

(verify)

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 08:34:56 2015 No.7658859

>>7658100
this is next level retardation....
They are literally telling you that Fk = 10 N because for it to move at constant speed they must cancel out. You are over-complicating things by trying to work it out via the angle which is probably made up seeing as it isn't relevant to the question.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 12:48:35 2015 No.7659105 >>7658859 But that means it had an initial velocity. Which is stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 13:01:08 2015 No.7659123 File: 27 KB, 500x375, ishygddt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7658100

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 13:04:37 2015 No.7659127 >>7658100 4real tho OP. It's simple physics. It's not complicated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTwE7xDZkPk >>7659123

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 13:08:24 2015 No.7659130 >sence no wonder you fail

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 15:25:56 2015 No.7659380 >>7658832 Even if what you said about the moon having a Force upward where correct it would not be moving at a Constant Velocity so still the question contradicts itself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 15:32:48 2015 No.7659384 File: 47 KB, 621x502, 1447496301554.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7658100 I cant fucking stand you goddamn undergrads with your asinine questions about shit so easy a fucking monkey could figure it out

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 15:33:18 2015 No.7659385
File: 35 KB, 640x496, 1445805759702.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7658859
1) Retarded

Ok idiot even if we ignore the BASICS of physics then the fking crate wouldn't move at all from a force IT WOULD HAVE NO NET FORCE ACTING ON IT so there fore HOW THE FUCK IS WORK DONE?
W=F(THERE IS NONE)d = 0
You massive retard

>>7659127 >>7659123
2) Retarded/outof10

>>7659130
Retarded asshole

>>7658547
Retake all of physics.
>ITT: So much hate for retards has been born.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 15:35:06 2015 No.7659388 >>7659384 see >>7659385 Also you might as well read the thread and see how retarded you are while you are at it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 15:45:51 2015 No.7659404 >>7659388 The only retard here is you thinking anyone cares about your insignificant shitty preschool problems you incessant little faggot.

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 15:52:31 2015 No.7659414

>>7659404
>I was to retarded to figure out a shitty preschool problem and now wan't to make myself feel better by trying to hurt some anon's feelings by saying he is a incessant little faggot for knowing more about fucking FBD and Forces than me.

Don't forget to kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 16:00:48 2015 No.7659427 If it moves at constant speed, then F_gravity + F_friction + F = 0 If the object had an initial velocity, then it will maintain that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 16:00:57 2015 No.7659429 >>7659414 >Don't forget to kill yourself. Why don't you follow your own advice?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 16:01:14 2015 No.7659431 >>7659414 I didnt even look at your dumb problem. I dont care about your retarded problems. I dont come to sci to talk about physics homework for 12 year olds.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 16:04:09 2015 No.7659437 >>7659431 I mean for fucks sake even the font is fucking comic sans. Why anyone dignified you with a response other than encouraging suicide is beyond me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 16:10:52 2015 No.7659449 Look you fucking retards. If the NET force is 10 the box is accelerating. No buts about it. OP is right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 16:11:53 2015 No.7659452 >>7659449 Edit: Kek, actually read the problem. Never said the net force was 10, OP just lied and is retarded.

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 16:12:09 2015 No.7659453
File: 772 KB, 957x535, 1445455203060.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7659429
>>7659431
Why the fuck did you go on the thread and post comments on the tread encouraging threads like this to continue and second of it's not homework you retards its just some classwork that completely contradicts itself and I wanted to make sure I was correct which I was.
Honestly m8 how retarded are you? I seriously hope you are a troll.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 16:15:53 2015 No.7659459 >>7658100 are you fucking serious OP? No wonder people on /sci/ still think the memedrive works.

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 16:16:21 2015 No.7659460
File: 1.71 MB, 500x500, :^).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7659453

Because I want you to know that I think you're a fucking faggot for bringing your highschool homework a fucking monkey could do to sci and I noticed you were angrily responding to everyone deriding you for being such a little faggot so I just couldnt stop myself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 16:16:49 2015 No.7659461 >>7659452 Ok then If it is the force applied the total net foce would be 40N downward from Gravity so even then It would have a net force but downward and that makes it even more incorrect (3meters upward)

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 16:19:16 2015 No.7659466 File: 1.65 MB, 400x260, UaRVVSU.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7659460

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 16:23:12 2015 No.7659472 >>7659466 When you're older than 13 your memory will be a minefield of cringe. Every time you think back you will want to drink poison because you remember what a complete faggot you used to act like when you were 13

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 16:25:48 2015 No.7659480
File: 28 KB, 600x579, Dumbouta10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The only way this question would make sense is if the Gravitational force magically changed from 50N to 10N. (Yeah I know another planet but that would have had to have been included by the problem which it wasn't)

Are all of you seriously telling me I am over thinking the problem by including gravity? You know Basic physics?

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 16:26:28 2015 No.7659482

>>7659453
>I was correct which I was.
But you aren't. Everyone tells you that you're wrong and a moron and all you do is respond with stupid reaction pics. Seriously, do what you told others to do and just fucking end your pathetic life you stinking piece of shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 16:28:45 2015 No.7659485 >>7659482 So much hate let it flow, see>>7659480

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 16:31:15 2015 No.7659492 >>7659482 You gotta admit its sort of funny how deep in denial he is. I wonder if he can delude himself into thinking he was right all along when it finally sinks in.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 18:33:18 2015 No.7659754 >>7659492 >>7659482 Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish You could at least read this It pretty much sums up the whole problem with the question.>>7659480

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 19:18:13 2015 No.7659810 File: 104 KB, 1280x720, shitballs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 19:26:16 2015 No.7659820 >>7659810 is this possible? the friction is on the wrong side

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 19:45:43 2015 No.7659843 >>7659810 >>7659820 the ramp must be sliding underneath the block, like a treadmill

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 19:50:51 2015 No.7659852

>>7658100
if you would connect a rope to a fixed point and connect it to the mass the rope would have a pulling force of 50N to prevent the block from sliding off
if you pull on that rope with 60N, you will result in an Fx of 10N pulling the block upwards, as the question stated

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 19:51:27 2015 No.7659855 Beats me, i dumped that boring shit out of my head the second I was finished physics I.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 20:03:53 2015 No.7659876 >>7658224 Get out while you can, then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 20:04:32 2015 No.7659877 >>7659852 not with constant velocity. >>7659810 friction makes no sence

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 20:15:09 2015 No.7659890 >>7659877 no since

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 20:18:24 2015 No.7659895

>>7659105
it TELLS you there is an initial velocity.

This is an example problem from the field of Statics, not Dynamics, meaning Fnet = 0, Statics applies to bodies that aren't accelerating - they can be moving at *any* speed including but not limited to zero.

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 20:34:30 2015 No.7659925

>>7658100
it is official, i have completely lost faith in this board. jesus christ guys, so many replies and none of them even remotely helpful.

OP you are obviously on the work-energy section of your physics class, have you bothered to read your textbook?

work, is a force applied over a distance, 10N, 3m, therefore the work done BY THE APPLIED FORCE is 30N-m. this completely ignores the work done by any other forces because THE QUESTION DOESNT ASK ABOUT THEM

the applied force does 30 N-m of work, because the net force is 0 then there is some opposing force, in this case gravity and friction both oppose the force, because the block is in equilibrium the sum of forces is 0, and the net work will be 0, therefore even though we would have to work out the specific magnitudes of the forces to know the opposing forces individual contributions to the work, we can conclude, just by looking at the problem statement that the total work done by the opposing forces must = -30N-m, therefore the net work done is 0, because the net force is 0, however there are individual forces, and there is motion, therefore each force does work

TL;DR you and everyone in this thread is a fucking morpn who needs to review the work-energy theorem.

literally entry level shit, you should all be ashamed

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 21:00:35 2015 No.7659971 >>7659925 funny how you didn't even notice the problems

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 21:38:27 2015 No.7660032 >>7659925 yeah you completely missed the problem, the friction is pointing in the wrong direction. OP is correct that it is a weird problem that could not exist in the real world

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 21:49:11 2015 No.7660040

>>7660032
>>7659971
>.< you guys still aren't getting it. it doesn't matter how bad the numbers are, for the purposes of calculating work, we don't care about the other forcesif the block is sliding down the ramp then gravity would be aiding the applied force, however it still doesn't change the work done BY THE APPLIED FORCE, again this is not fucking hard, a force is exerted, the object travels a distance, the work done is that force times that distance, each force has does it's own work, and the total work is the sum of the individual works

its really not hard

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 21:51:26 2015 No.7660041 >>7660040 cont. basically the only thing it would change is the direction of the work, ie positive or negative, if the force is in the same direction as motion, then the work is positive, if it is against the direction of motion then it is negative

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 21:53:56 2015 No.7660046 >>7660040 the block should be sliding down the ramp, not up. Look at >>7659810 you can't have a friction force in this direction so the original problem statement is impossible

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 21:57:26 2015 No.7660048 >>7660041 so in the problem the work done by the applied force would be negative, and so would the work done by friction

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 21:59:02 2015 No.7660049

>>7660046
doesnt matter for calculating the work, which is what the question wants, fine it is a poorly chosen question, but if OP had learned what he was supposed to, and if any of you knew anything about physics you should have no problem answering the questions

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 22:00:38 2015 No.7660053 >>7660048 sounds like it ya, if you consider the work by gravity to be positive then everything balances and net forces and net work = 0, thus no acceleration

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 22:00:54 2015 No.7660054

>>7660046
what the fuck
of course you can have friction in that direction
friction will try to counter any movement, if the block is wanting to slide down friction force will go the opposite way
if you're about the pull the block upwards the friction will go downwards

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 22:01:06 2015 No.7660056 >>7660049 yeah obviously an easy question, but still should point out to the teacher the problem statement has a minor error. should say the block is sliding down the ramp 3m. Then everything works out and the work is negative.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 22:04:57 2015 No.7660060 >>7660054 Inorder to balance the net force equation, friction must be in the same direction as applied force. So the object is sliding downwards. The problem statement says clearly the block is moving upwards 3m.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 22:09:40 2015 No.7660070 >>7660060 >friction must be in the same direction as applied force I don't see why that has to be also the question never even mentioned friction >The problem statement says clearly the block is moving upwards 3m aka downwards friction

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 22:16:18 2015 No.7660077

>>7660070
it has to be because otherwise the net force is not zero, do the algebra. if the friction is downwards the force is not balanced and the object is accelerating.
its problems like this that separate the wheat from the chaff, shouldn't take you more than a few seconds to work out the problem for yourself.

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 22:41:22 2015 No.7660109

O my god You guys are all arguing over a question that makes no sense.

Op was talking about different scenarios to this problem from 10N being the applied force to 10N being the Net force, to show you guys no matter how you look at it this would not work on Earth.

Obviously that was to much for /sci to handle but yes Op you are right this question would not work in the real world, if /sci would do the SIMPLE math this thread would have been filled with people agreeing not people calling Op retarded without providing any help or though to his question.

Anonymous Sat Nov 14 23:03:53 2015 No.7660153
File: 50 KB, 540x720, 2kifJAO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7660109
might as well read facebook comments... pic related. The only reasonable response to this post is to point out that OP's teacher is retarded.

at least the retards on sci are little kids, i've seen 30 year old math teachers argue about this pic on facebook. This is the root of the problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 23:13:09 2015 No.7660170 >>7660153 Not gonna lie bro that is how I do it in my head...... Either way works tho I guess......

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 14 23:21:47 2015 No.7660190 >>7660170 yeah thats what i meant, but watching teachers argue over it makes you realize how bad at math most teachers are. They literally didn't understand that both ways worked fine.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 15 06:22:26 2015 No.7660587 >>7660077 the graph clearly shows that F is bigger than the sliding force teacher obviously means the total Fx on the mass is +10N

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 15 08:17:07 2015 No.7660695 File: 38 KB, 502x226, orig.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OP's problem is a modified version of this and 10 N is probably a typo and should read 100 N.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 15 08:42:47 2015 No.7660720 great tgread

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 15 09:33:11 2015 No.7660788 >>7659460 lmao @ the madness in this thread but to be fair whenever I post research tier math nobody here has a clue.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 15 13:36:51 2015 No.7661133 >>7660109 >>7660695 /Thread

Anonymous Sun Nov 15 16:33:11 2015 No.7661418
File: 44 KB, 320x240, 1442164905428.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Op here
>>7659810
Not even gonna go into this.

>>7660109
>>7660153
Lol yeah.
But no dude, my teacher is not retarded he actually understands what he is doing I think he just made a simple mistake. I think it might have been since he was actually making the problem and trying to dumb it down to the retards in my class that he made the mistake. Imo he is one of the best teachers in my school.

The only retards are the people who saw this problem and actually though It made any sense whatsoever, I mean honestly It is FBD and Forces!

>>7660695
Yeah that makes even more sense than changing the gravity by moving it to another planet, since you can now calculate the friction as well.
Thx anon at least I learned where this question went wrong from this thread.

>>7661133
Yep

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 16 01:29:36 2015 No.7662293 >>7660170 Why would you do that when you could just [math]32-10[/math] and then [math]22-2[/math]?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]