Amanda's Pageeee :) and there aren't any pictures or graphs on here anymore so yay!

Projectile Motion:

So, to figure out if the velocity in the x direction was constant or not, I basically just checked the position after certain increments of time. Since they're so small, I assumed that pressing an arrow right or left is the same amount of time each time. Here are the numbers I got:

1: 15 cm
2: 28 cm
3: 40 cm
4: 54 cm
5: 72 cm
6: 89 cm

These are all the positions on the x-axis. Overall, since they do follow a general trend and are approximately similar distances further away at each time period, we can conclude that the velocity is constant. Also, since I was just estimating the numbers from the video, it was hard to get exact numbers and that could play a role in any outliers.

To find out if the air resistance was negligible, I used the numbers I already found. Since there are no forces acting on the projectile in the x direction, there should be no change in velocity. If there was some sort of acceleration, it would probably mean that air resistance does play a role in this. Since the numbers indicated about a constant velocity, air resistance is negligible in this situation. Also, it's hard to tell if the variance in distances is because of my error or because of air resistance but since the projectile was so small, had so little surface area, and was not in the air for long, I am going to assume that the variations are caused by my own error.




Questions for "Ingredients for a Revolution" Reading:

1. Change is extremely important to science because scientific knowledge is constantly changing with new ideas and observations. These changes help answer some questions and form probably even more questions. Continuity is also important because when there is continuity and agreement on ideas, they become more accepted and can be put to practical use. Discontinuity possible requires different explanations than first expected.
2. No, his system was not "unscientific" although it is no longer accepted. He did use observations for his system and actually predicted events decently well. Although it was not what is now considered correct, it was based on scientific methods.
3. Yes, Copernicus's system was an improvement over Ptolemy's because although Ptolemy's was scientific, it could not seem to explain certain outliers that just kept being ignored. For example, the orbit of Mars could not be explained by Ptolemy, but it could be explained by Copernicus's system.
4. Scientists' preconceptions have gotten in the way of science because often, when something is accepted, it is almost thought of as perfect and outliers that could possibly lead to a better understand may be regarded as outliers and completely ignored.
5. No, I do not agree. Successful science is done with the input of others and not alone and isolated. This is because with more people, there are more ideas possible and also, sharing information that is learned can help progress other research being investigated, leading to more answers and hopefully, even more questions.
6. Technology aids science in most ways. For example, it allows scientists to share information much more easily, especially when direct contact is not possible. Also, it allows better observations to be made, such as with improved telescopes.