Basic Physics Savvy Quiz
-
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.
