Basic Physics Savvy Quiz
-
Many of the questions aren't very clear - though considering they can be answered "true" or "false" helps a bit. I didn't fail on these trick questions, though :cool:
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
trick questions
There are alot of them. I'd say this "Basic Physics Savvy Quiz" is more an exercise in how well you know the test writer so you know when they're using specific language and when they're not - e.g., more an exercise in how people interpret questions than an emphasis on the questions themselves. Some of the questions are hard to misinterpret. Other questions are designed to be. Nobody who was really trying to gauge your physics savvy would ask questions that way.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
http://www.intuitor.com/physics_test/PhysicsSavvy.html[^] Got 75% without Google or cheating :)
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008) -
http://www.intuitor.com/physics_test/PhysicsSavvy.html[^] Got 75% without Google or cheating :)
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008)82.5 and I got a D for DumbA** in college physics.
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway -
I call subjective! "13) An astronaut orbits the Earth 500 miles above its surface. She appears to be weightless because there is virtually no gravitational force on her. X Your Answer: true" - She does appear to be weightless, where in fact she is not. 30) An atom is just like a tiny solar system in which the nucleus is like the Sun and electrons are like tiny planets orbiting the nucleus in elliptical paths. Your Answer: false - A tough call. What just "just like" mean. No two solar systems are even "just like" each other. I got this one correct, but don't like it. Oh yes, 67.5%. Not too bad for mainly twenty year old school memories - all except the overly emphasized difference between vectors and scalars.
Semicolons: The number one seller of ostomy bags world wide. - dan neely
Brady Kelly wrote:
"13) An astronaut orbits the Earth 500 miles above its surface. She appears to be weightless because there is virtually no gravitational force on her. X Your Answer: true" - She does appear to be weightless, where in fact she is not.
The part that's false is "there is virtually no gravitational force on her" - there is actually quite a bit of gravitational force on her, and if she wasn't moving in orbit, she would be falling to a fiery death. What we call "zero gravity" isn't really zero gravity.
-
Ah thats just facts, you can prove anything with facts! I have been electrocuted several times, car batteries and household electrics. To define it as death is like saying hanging is fatal. Mediaeval Punishment was often Hanging until not quite dead before drawing and quartering,(ok these were the fatal bits. As you're an American, perhaps you can answer me this, is Electrocution still used as a death penalty in The States?
------------------------------------ "I want you to imagine I have a blaster in my hand" - Zaphod Beeblebrox. "You DO have a blaster in your hand" - Freighter Pilot "Yeah, so you don't have to tax your imagination too hard" - Zaphod Beeblebrox
I thing you mean you have been shocked several times - electrocution [^] is the fatal form of being shocked by electricity.
Steve
-
Ah thats just facts, you can prove anything with facts! I have been electrocuted several times, car batteries and household electrics. To define it as death is like saying hanging is fatal. Mediaeval Punishment was often Hanging until not quite dead before drawing and quartering,(ok these were the fatal bits. As you're an American, perhaps you can answer me this, is Electrocution still used as a death penalty in The States?
------------------------------------ "I want you to imagine I have a blaster in my hand" - Zaphod Beeblebrox. "You DO have a blaster in your hand" - Freighter Pilot "Yeah, so you don't have to tax your imagination too hard" - Zaphod Beeblebrox
I thing you mean you have been shocked several times - electrocution [^] is the fatal form of being shocked by electricity. now this is weird...it double posted me...
Steve
-
http://www.intuitor.com/physics_test/PhysicsSavvy.html[^] Got 75% without Google or cheating :)
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008)80% with a couple of guesses right. Some of the questions were iffy and could be interpreted in other ways. Fun though and thanks for sharing!
-
80% but disagree with Q35. It states the small ampage required to be fatal. OK I buy that. It also asks if a car battery can electrocute. I said YES. It said the answer was no. The question did not ask whether the battery would FATALLY electrocute. I speak from experience here, Car batteries give a hell of a wallop! Maybe not fatal , but electrocution nonetheless! Bad Question! Other than that I am appalled at the ones I got wrong! (2.2 in Physics and I missed a couple of pearlers!) :)
------------------------------------ "I want you to imagine I have a blaster in my hand" - Zaphod Beeblebrox. "You DO have a blaster in your hand" - Freighter Pilot "Yeah, so you don't have to tax your imagination too hard" - Zaphod Beeblebrox
Electrocution = Electric + Execution :-D http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/electrocution[^]
-
I thing you mean you have been shocked several times - electrocution [^] is the fatal form of being shocked by electricity. now this is weird...it double posted me...
Steve
maybe your 'puter was electrocuted? :)
------------------------------------ "I want you to imagine I have a blaster in my hand" - Zaphod Beeblebrox. "You DO have a blaster in your hand" - Freighter Pilot "Yeah, so you don't have to tax your imagination too hard" - Zaphod Beeblebrox
-
http://www.intuitor.com/physics_test/PhysicsSavvy.html[^] Got 75% without Google or cheating :)
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008)82.5% although I feel some questions were abgiuous. For example the one about the car's engine, what happens with a torque converter, turbo. Yes I'm being picky but most cars now-a-days have these so...
I doubt it. If it isn't intuitive then we need to fix it. - Chris Maunder
-
maybe your 'puter was electrocuted? :)
------------------------------------ "I want you to imagine I have a blaster in my hand" - Zaphod Beeblebrox. "You DO have a blaster in your hand" - Freighter Pilot "Yeah, so you don't have to tax your imagination too hard" - Zaphod Beeblebrox
more likely one of the hamsters in the server farm tripped ;)
Steve
-
http://www.intuitor.com/physics_test/PhysicsSavvy.html[^] Got 75% without Google or cheating :)
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008)97.5. Was tricked by the one question I should have got: clouds are water droplets, not vapour! :doh: (I count that as samantic cheating in an exam and demand a recount!)
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
http://www.intuitor.com/physics_test/PhysicsSavvy.html[^] Got 75% without Google or cheating :)
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008)The average velocity of a car that goes around a circular track depends upon one's reference frame. If one uses an gravitational/inertial reference frame, a car which makes an integral number of circuits in an integral number of 23h56m intervals will average roughly zero velocity relative to any other apparently-non-moving point on the planet. Since the circuits were driven over a two-hour interval, however, a vector from almost any reference point to the spot on the track where the car began/ended the exercise will have changed direction quite considerably (up to 30 degrees).
-
97.5. Was tricked by the one question I should have got: clouds are water droplets, not vapour! :doh: (I count that as samantic cheating in an exam and demand a recount!)
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
http://www.intuitor.com/physics_test/PhysicsSavvy.html[^] Got 75% without Google or cheating :)
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008) -
http://www.intuitor.com/physics_test/PhysicsSavvy.html[^] Got 75% without Google or cheating :)
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008):cool:
-
http://www.intuitor.com/physics_test/PhysicsSavvy.html[^] Got 75% without Google or cheating :)
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008)80% :cool:
-- Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time - Bertrand Russel
-
http://www.intuitor.com/physics_test/PhysicsSavvy.html[^] Got 75% without Google or cheating :)
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 alpha 4a out now (29 May 2008)Same score (75%) - it's been a LOT of years since Physics classes. Agree with some of the other comments about semantics. When I was in school, the word "voltage" was synonymous with the term "Electromotive force" but this quiz states that voltage is NOT a force. A difference in electrical potential causing electrons to move is not a force whereas a difference in gravitational potential is? Come on. Also the stuff about cubic cm and mm is utter gobshite and relates to mis-use of terms in a particular field and has nothing to do with the SI system. Rich
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
95%
:omg:
Steve_Harris Biography:
Started off with a chemistry degree...
Oh well... :cool:
Mostly, when you see programmers, they aren't doing anything. One of the attractive things about programmers is that you cannot tell whether or not they are working simply by looking at them. Very often they're sitting there seemingly drinking coffee and gossiping, or just staring into space. What the programmer is trying to do is get a handle on all the individual and unrelated ideas that are scampering around in his head. (Charles M Strauss)
Mladen Jankovic wrote:
Oh well...
LOL. I did guess some by looking at the papers from an examiner's perspective and realising where they were trying to trick you!
-
The average velocity of a car that goes around a circular track depends upon one's reference frame. If one uses an gravitational/inertial reference frame, a car which makes an integral number of circuits in an integral number of 23h56m intervals will average roughly zero velocity relative to any other apparently-non-moving point on the planet. Since the circuits were driven over a two-hour interval, however, a vector from almost any reference point to the spot on the track where the car began/ended the exercise will have changed direction quite considerably (up to 30 degrees).
It occurred to me yesterday that when I drive to work my average velocity is greater than that of a Nascar/Indy/F1 champion.
