OFFICIAL SAT ii PHYSICS!

<p>What was the answer for the quasar one?</p>

<p>I put light because it only makes sense that if there so far away that they wouldnt emit much light, but being that the definition says its bright basically means that we needed to know what a quasar is and thats completely unfair.</p>

<p>um no i didnt get that answer for the quasar question ...</p>

<p>yeah, that was definitely the one about the start of the universe.</p>

<p>But the fact that their bright doesn't explain that the nearest ones are 5 billion lightyears (or w/e) away. It might be true, but it doesn't explain it.</p>

<p>I think it's testing our knowledge of light years. If a star is 5 billion light years away, it means it would have taken 5 billion years for light to reach Earth which would mean that its at least that old and was created at the birth of the universe. Then again, new studies prove our universe is 14 billion years old so idk...</p>

<p>i don't think they'd mention the distances involved if it didn't have to do with the answer, but idk</p>

<p>what about the question with focal length and the distance. I got 30 is that correct ?</p>

<p>Yep that's what I got.</p>

<p>Oh and there was another mirror question...where a mirror reflected back diverging rays from a light source? What would make it reflect parallel rays or something like that...</p>

<p>I think I put all except the last one, but I'm not completely sure.</p>

<p>i made only making it straight . is that right ?</p>

<p>I said making straight and moving source back</p>

<p>cool, i think that's rite...it was like I and III, rite?</p>

<p>uhmm. i put bending the mirror to reduce the curvature only. moving the source back will still cause the mirror to diverge...</p>

<p>making it straight would make only one parallel ray, moving it farther away would make the light 'straighter'. Thus it was only II, or moving the light source away</p>

<p>that's what i think too . Who can confirm the right answer ?</p>

<p>what'd you guys put for the work and the efficiency?</p>

<p>was it 100J, 25%?</p>

<p>right, those temperatures had nothing to do with the efficiency</p>

<p>Ya, the temperatures were a distraction.</p>