<p>nah for the two balls i think its greater graviational force
because theyre dropped from the same height so r is a constant and then G and m of earth are also contasts...so the only variable is mass of the object which is greater
also wouldnt a greater buoyant force mean it would slow down??</p>
<p>hm for the two balls one. choice A was big ball has greater weight. choice B was big ball has greater gravitational force, which is its weight force. so i think it can't be either A or B since they are saying the same thing. buoyancy (C) and water vapor making small ball more massive (E) didnt make sense either. so i chose D (ratio of mass to surface area), though i can't really prove its true.</p>
<p>It's because lower mass to surface area means like a piece of paper while high mass to surface area means like a crumbled piece of paper. Obviously, due to air resistance, the high mass to surface ratio affects the fall.</p>
<p>what about the question where u shoot a positive charge across a capacitor with top plate being negative and bottom being positive. was the path upward parabolically or circular? i put upward parabolically.</p>
<p>i put circular upward because the field is uniform throughout</p>
<p>Hm..I put that is was parabolic upward for that one..</p>
<p>Escius, you're right. The ray diagram clearly reflects that it's higher. Oh well =(</p>
<p>i thought circular because the force acts perpendicular to the velocity, and i believe i saw something similar to it in the PR review book.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can anybody confirm this? All the other choices seem to be wrong.</p>
<p>I said circular upward as well, but I was told I was wrong.</p>
<p>Yes. The answer regarding surface ratio is correct. I asked my teacher. :P</p>
<p>Is the reasoning also correct Quesce?</p>
<p>Yes but the grammar is horrendous. XD</p>
<p>i just consulted my notes (though i am now somewhat swayed the other way): "the path followed by the electron [shot into a charged parallel plate] is a parabola." i assume a positive charge would be the same, just toward the other plate.</p>
<p>can some1 confirm or disprove - i am somewhat, but not 100%, convinced by the uniform electric field and thus centripedal force explaination for the circular path.</p>
<p>Lmao Quesce, at least you get it. :)</p>
<p>i remember reading that it's a parabola too!</p>
<p>Heh.</p>
<p>I wish it were the 26th today. I kind of dislike waiting. =.= ...</p>
<p>I also wish AP scores come out sooner..I took the AP for physics and it was effin hard. <em>sniffs</em> Prolly got a 3 or a 4.</p>
<p>I have a feeling my AP score won't correlate with my SAT II score...</p>
<p>Me too. I believe my SAT score will be a lot prettier...x.x</p>
<p>This is messed up I studied for 5 days on AP Physics but only 2 days for SAT II Physics yet I think I did significantly better on the SAT II Physics. Is it because cumulatively I studied 7 days for the subject Physics?</p>
<p>No. It's because the SAT II is easier. imo anyway. </p>
<p>In my school, the average/weaker students (not nice to say this but that's the most direct way I can get my message across) are recommended to take the normal Physics course which supposedly prepares them for the SAT II. On the other hand, the more adept students are recommended to take AP Physics B's course as opposed to just normal physics.</p>
<p>Meh. Okay. So far, I've got 2 that I know I got wrong and I've skipped 5 questions. That means my total known points deducted at the moment is:</p>
<p>7 + 2(0.25) = 7.50</p>
<p>The highest possible score I can get is therefore 67.5/75.</p>
<p>63/75 = 800</p>
<p>...Oh man. If I get more than 3 other questions wrong then there goes the 800.</p>