You roll a 1 kg ball with no coefficient of friction down three

>>8162000
take your homework to >>>/wsr/

>>8162003

this isnt homework. i figured it out already but i want to see what /sci/ thinks about the question. i just think its interesting.

Well, after you finish dynamics 101, you can calculate it by yourself.

>>8162000
>roll
>no friction
go back to high school.
Also, your conjecture is wrong.

>>8162005
>i figured it out already but i want to see what /sci/ thinks about the question.
It's a basic physics problem.
>Hey guys, I just wanted to know your opinions on 4+4=?. I've already figured it out, but i want to see what /sci/ thinks about the question.

>>8162000
With no friction the ball will not roll unless you impart an initial amount of rotational momentum.

>>8162000
Well your conjecture is wrong.

>>8163611
You're a fucking idiot. It's an object on a SLOPE with no friction. Gravity causes an acceleration downwards. As long as there is a slope of any kind, the object will accelerate down the slope.

>>8164401
>no friction
Why would it roll rather than slide?

>>8164401
And it wont roll. Thus he is right.

You guys are fucking idiots, you know exactly what he meant by "roll"

The ball will slide as he mentioned no friction. Now, as you mentioned, In all 3 the variable x will increase at the same rate. No that is not true. Well we cant really say. Lots of variables are missing here. Is the value of x the same for all of them? Are we counting in acceleration here?

>>8164420
Rolling vs not rolling is an important part to questions like this. Rolling requires more energy - the rotational kinetic energy, which means a rolling ball moves down a hill slower than a ball that slides down - all other things being equal. IIRC.

>>8162000
False because the x-component of the normal force (what pushes the ball forward) is not the same. Also without friction it would slide, not roll.

>>8164447

if it has no coefficient of friction you can safely assume that the ball gains no rotational momentum.

>>8162000
sin(a)*cos(a) = const for all a?

>>8164475
No, since it's sin(2a), which is why, as I said in >>8162031,
the original "conjecture" is wrong.
Stop fucking replying, or at least sage

>>8164485
*proportional to sin(2a)