How do rubber bouncing balls work? Does the table exert more force than is appli…

How do rubber bouncing balls work? Does the table exert more force than is applied, causing an upward acceleration?

The table never pushes up on the ball harder than the ball pushes down on the table. That would violate Newton’s third law and is just not the way our universe works. As the ball strikes the table, the two objects dent. The ball dents most and has work done on its surface—the table pushes the surface inward and work is force times distance in the direction of that force. The ball stores this work/energy as a deformation of its elastic surface and a compression of the air inside the ball. The ball then rebounds from the table as this stored energy reemerges as kinetic energy in the ball. Throughout the bounce, the upward force that the table exerts on the ball is much larger than the ball’s downward weight. As a result, the ball accelerates upward the whole time. It starts the bounce heading downward and finishes the bounce heading upward.

When you transfer momentum between two objects, why is it that the change in tot…

When you transfer momentum between two objects, why is it that the change in total momentum is 0?

Suppose you are standing motionless on extremely slippery ice. If you now take off your shoe and throw it northward as hard as you can, you will transfer momentum to it. Since you and your shoe were initially motionless, your combined momentum was 0. Neither of you nor the shoe was moving, so the product of mass times velocity was 0. But after you throw the shoe, both you and the shoe have momentum. Your momentum is equal to your mass times your velocity, so your momentum points in the direction you are going. The shoe also has momentum, equal to its mass times its velocity. But since it is heading in the opposite direction from you, it has the opposite momentum from you. Together, your combined momentum remains exactly 0—it didn’t change. In general, momentum is transferred from one object to another so that any change in momentum in one object is always compensated for by an opposite change in momentum in the other object.

Is it true that gravity is stronger at the north pole than at the equator. Does …

Is it true that gravity is stronger at the north pole than at the equator. Does that mean that a person would be able to jump higher at the equator?

Yes. Because of its rotation, the earth isn’t quite spherical and people near the poles of the earth experience stronger gravity than at the equator. At the equator, they would experience an apparent weight that was 1% less than at the poles and would be able to jump higher as a result. The Olympic committee should take note.

If you lifted an object with a hanging scale on earth and it read 15 N, would it…

If you lifted an object with a hanging scale on earth and it read 15 N, would it read the same on Jupiter? What about the gravitational force pulling the object down? Wouldn’t that alter the reading on the scale? Would you have to calibrate another scale to measure mass on Jupiter?

No, the scale would not read the same on Jupiter, and there would be nothing wrong with the scale! On Jupiter, the object would simply weigh more than on earth. Its mass wouldn’t have changed and it would still contain the same number of atoms, but Jupiter would pull on it harder. As a result, the scale would have to pull upward on it harder and the scale would read a larger number of newtons. You wouldn’t want to recalibrate the scale because it would be doing its job: it would correctly report that the object weighed about 40 N.

If you hang a weight from a scale ten feet up and the weight descends 2 feet, is…

If you hang a weight from a scale ten feet up and the weight descends 2 feet, is the loss in gravitational potential energy equal to the elastic potential energy gained?

Not quite. When you first let go of the weight, it falls freely because the spring isn’t stretched and doesn’t exert any upward force on the weight. The spring won’t support the weight fully until the weight has fallen 2 feet. By then, the weight has acquired a lot of kinetic energy and it overshoots the 2-foot level. The weight begins to bounce up and down around that 2 foot point and takes a while to settle down. The weight is vibrating up and down because it has too much energy at the 2-foot point. Eventually, it converts its extra energy into thermal energy and becomes motionless at the 2-foot point. At that point, it has turned exactly 1/2 of the missing gravitational potential energy into elastic potential energy and the other 1/2 into thermal energy. This 50/50 conversion is a remarkable result related to the exact proportionality between the spring’s distortion and the force it exerts.

If a spring scale measures weight, what does a mass scale use to figure out mass…

If a spring scale measures weight, what does a mass scale use to figure out mass? Are weight and mass measured the same way?

A spring scale measures weight. It does this by reporting how much upward force it needs to exert on an object to keep that object from accelerating. Since this upward force exactly balances the object’s weight (assuming the object isn’t accelerating), the upward force reported by the scale is exactly equal to the object’s weight. If the scale reports that the object has a certain mass (in kilograms), then it is taking advantage of the fact that, near the earth’s surface, each kilogram of mass weighs 9.8 newtons. But it is still measuring weight and using the relationship between mass and weight to determine the object’s mass. If you were to move the “mass” scale to a new location, such as the moon’s surface, the scale would read incorrectly because the relationship between mass and weight would have changed.

How can you measure weight and/or mass through distance?

How can you measure weight and/or mass through distance?

With a spring scale, the distortion of the spring is proportional to how much force it is exerting. If you measure that distortion, you can determine how hard it is pulling or pushing on whatever is attached to it. If it’s supporting the weight of an object, you can determine that object’s weight by measuring how far the spring distorts while supporting it.

Why is the frictional force on a wagon’s wheel in the opposite direction from th…

Why is the frictional force on a wagon’s wheel in the opposite direction from the frictional force on a car’s wheel?

When you pull a wagon forward, friction from the ground starts the wheel turning and it does this by pushing backward on the bottom of the wheel. Friction is thus preventing the wheel from skidding across the pavement. When you step on a car’s accelerator, the car’s engine starts the wheel turning and friction from the ground pushes forward on the bottom of the wheel to prevent the wheel from skidding across the pavement. In the first case, friction is trying to help the wheel to turn while in the second case friction is trying to keep the wheel from turning. That’s why the forces (and the resulting torques) on the wheel are in opposite directions for the two cases.

Why is it that we can use energy without doing work? Where does this energy go? …

Why is it that we can use energy without doing work? Where does this energy go? For example, you could push on a wall until your arms fell off, but you wouldn’t have done any work.

When you are pushing on something without doing any work, your energy is being converted directly into thermal energy inside your body. Your muscles are inefficient and they convert food energy into thermal energy whenever they are under tension. It’s like a car, which uses gasoline even when it’s stopped at the light. The engine keeps running but it does no work. Similarly, if you simply burned your cereal in your breakfast bowl, you would turn its energy directly into thermal energy without doing any useful work. Your body is also able to burn up that food energy and create thermal energy, albeit a little less visibly.

Why are tires filled with air instead of something less likely to go flat?

Why are tires filled with air instead of something less likely to go flat?

This is an interesting question with several answers. First, a solid rubber tire would have a huge mass and would require consider work to accelerate. Because it rotates as the car moves, a tire stores twice as much kinetic energy as the other parts of the cars. By reducing the mass of the tires, the car reduces the amount of energy it must put into the tires to get them moving and the amount of energy it must remove from the tires to stop them from turning.

Secondly, a solid rubber tire would be so hard that it would give the car a very rough ride. The air in the tires cushions the car against many of the rough spots it drives over. Without the air cushion, the wheels and axles would bound up and down with every pebble in the road.

Lastly, a solid rubber tire would be very expensive. The materials used in a tire are expensive and a tire’s cost should be roughly proportional to its weight. Since a solid tire would weigh much more than an air-filled one, it would also cost much more. Its tread would still wear out, so it wouldn’t last any longer than an air-filled tire.