Kinetic energy is directly proportional to the square of an object's velocity.
If you graph the object's kinetic energy against the square of its speed, the
graph is a straight line, and the slope of the line is 1/2 of the object's mass.
This goes back to the derivation of kinetic energy.
Consider a body of mass m, initially at rest, being accelerated by a constant force F to a speed v through a distance s.
The acceleration produced by the force is given by
a = F/m
Applying Newton's equation of motion v2 = u2 +2as, we have
v2 = 0 +2(F/m)s
Fs = 1/2 mv2
The work done by the force, Fs, is completely converted into the kinetic energy of the body.
Thus kinetic energy = 1/2 mv2
This is where the v2 comes from.
No. The punnet square should yield 75% dominant. If the sides of the square are A and a versus A and a, capital A meaning the dominant gene, which expresses over the recessive gene "a" whenever it is present, then the possible outcomes in the square are: AA, Aa. aA, and aa. Three out of four, or 75%, are dominant.
I like potatoes
Anything that captures its own energy from external non-living sources, such as the sun, deep-sea thermal vents, etc. Auto=self, hetero=other. Hence "self-feeding" versus "feeding on others"
Nature versus Nurture.
im not sure
Yes.
Work and kinetic energy are defined as scalar energy and have the same units joules. dW=F.dr = (dP/dt) dr=dP(dr/dt) = dPv = vdP= mvdv W = F.r = mv^2/2. Physics has defined scalar energy but has no definition for vector energy mcV. Torque which is T= Fxr should be recognized as vector energy but it is defined as "Torque". This is another example of Physics not appreciating that the Universe is made of Quaternions, a Scalar part and a Vector part. E= FR = -F.R + FxR where the scalar energy has been defined as work (F.R) and the vector energy is defined as Torque FxR. Kinetic energy is a transformation of work in terms of mass and velocity versus force and distance. The vector energy is not called energy. See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque
velocity
Assuming the graph is for displacement versus time, the motion should be constant velocity. If velocity versus time motion is constant acceleration
If you started at zero velocity, yes.
Too many words
A vertical line on a velocity vs time graph is physically impossible.
instantaneous magnitude of velocity
The rate of change in accelleration.
EV on Earth is 11.186 km/s EV on Uranus is 21.3 km/s
Energy, versus passive in which energy is not used.
Tangent of the slope at any point = velocity