Newton’s three laws

 

Define Newton’s three laws. Please post your definition of each law. (This is worth 5 points)
1. Newton’s first law of motion: An object at rest will stay at rest, and an object in motion will stay in motion unless a force acts on it.
2. Newton’s second law of motion: Force equals mass times acceleration. The greater the force the greater the acceleration. The greater the mass, the greater the force needed to move the object.
3. Newton’s third law of motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Forces are always found in pairs. If the forces are equal in opposite directions, the object will not move. The forces cancel each other out so that the acceleration is zero.

COMPLETE ALL Lab Activities below:
# 1
1. Place a note card on the table so about 1/3 of the card extends over the edge of the table.
2. Place a washer on the card that is on the table.
3. As quickly as you can, pull the card from under the washer.
4. Observe the motion of the washer.
What did you observe?
Which of Newton’s Laws is being demonstrated by this activity? Explain your rationale?
# 2
1. Hold your right hand next to your right ear with palm up.
2. Place a penny on your elbow.
3. Quickly straighten your arm and catch the penny.
What did you observe?
Which of Newton’s Laws is being demonstrated by this activity? Explain your rationale?
# 3
1. Balance a meter stick on one hand and the ruler on the other hand.
Which is easier to balance and what did you observe?

Sample Solution

Newton`s three laws

Newton`s laws of motion, three statements describing the relations between the forces acting on a body and the motion of the body, first formulated by English physicist and mathematician Isaac Newton, which are the foundation of classical mechanics. In the first law, an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it. In the second law, the force on an object is equal to its mass times its acceleration. In the third law, when two objects interact, they apply forces to each other of equal magnitude and opposite direction. Newton`s first law states that if a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force.

ué believes the main reason for the end of the Cold War was the lack of control Gorbachev had over the Eastern European countries. Ultimately, this led to the end of the Cold War because the countries broke away from the Soviet control, which further led to the rapid downfall of the Soviets. Levesqué argues Gorbachev tried to have “the best of both worlds” by having “change and relative stability” in the Eastern European countries. Gorbachev was too focused on the West, disregarding the Eastern European countries which led to their independence because “first priority was given to the East-West rapprochement”. Therefore, the Eastern European countries were a significant reason for the end of the Cold War because the Soviet Union lost control over them as their power was minimised.

Additionally, Levesqué depicts how historians in the past thought that Soviet Union leaders had “very poor information on the situation in Eastern Europe”. His argument is based on newly released documents, such as the report from the Bogomolov Institute, which clearly reveal problems at the time – they were just not acted upon. Eastern countries e.g Bratislava were looking to become independent because they disliked the Russian control, but this desire for independence was negative since it meant that the Soviet Union had less control over reforming them. Gorbachev wanted the leaders themselves to implement the changes, supporting the idea of freedom and democracy, but this ultimately led to the Cold War’s end as many were hesitant and refused to implement changes. “Gorbachev was convinced that reform could work in Eastern Europe, but he believed that the initiative had to come from the top leadership of these countries”, supports Oberdorfer’s central argument of his leadership being the main reason of the Cold War’s end, which is a narrow perspective. Levesque argues “the information was abundant and accurate, and the analysis was sophisticated”, suggesting that the Soviet Union’s leaders were aware of the situation and they should have taken action for the reforms to advance further especially as Poland and Hungary were “evolving very rapidly” reflecting the quick political change within these countries. Major change was happening very fast for the first time, with no one knowing how things were going to evolve, similar to the uncertainty with Brexit. Gorbachev was expected to aid the two rapidly evolving countries financially but “Moscow was much more demanding and stingy in its economic relations with its allies” which was a result of the imbalanced focus between the East and the West which created political problems. Even so, the rapid change would have been a benefit if it was controlled to help reform the Eastern European countries. Gorbachev used Poland and Hungary as a form of persuasive propaganda, therefore countries who did not want to reform would have felt pressured and obliged to comply with his policies, due to the non-existent financial help. By not providing funding for the reforms he wanted, Gorbachev created discontent, therefore Levesque argues “it is not surprising that East European leaders complained privately to their Soviet counterparts about Soviet neglect”.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.