Part 1: Star Identification

A. Name: Alpha Crucis

Distance from Earth: 321 light years
When Light Left: 1696
Size Compared to Sun: 13x more massive
Luminosity: 16,000L
B. Name: Eta Crucis
Distance from Earth: 64 light years
When Light Left: 1953
Size Compared to Sun: 1.4x mass of the sun
Luminosity: 9L
C. Name: Zeta Crucis
Distance from Earth: 360 light years
When Light Left: 1657
Size Compared to Sun: 7.7x more massive
Luminosity: 1950L
D. Name: Epsilon Crucis
Distance from Earth: 228 light years
When Light Left: 1789
Size Compared to Sun: 1.7x more massive
Luminosity: 330L

Part 2: Equation Analysis

Equation 1: e=mc2

Question 1.

E= Energy, variable
M= Mass, variable
C2= Speed of Light squared, constant

Question 2. What is the size of c2?

8.98755179 1016 m2 / s2

Question 3. Are mass and Energy related? Explain.

Yes. Because they are equivalent as given by the statement e=mc 2 sort of
the way you can use f=ma to figure a=f/m, you can use Einstein's equation
m=e/c2

Question 4. Analyze the satement "If it is possible to change mass into

energy a little bit of mass could produce a lot of energy."

This is true. It is true because the amount of energy released is multiplied by

the speed of light squared, which is an outrageously high number.

Equation 2: d=gt2/2

d=distance an object falls

g=acceleration of gravity at the earth's surface
t=time the object has been falling

Question 5: Which of the following statements do you agree with and why?

A. Heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects

B. Objects fall at the same speed (if no air resistance) and weight doesn't
matter.

I agree with statement B. The reason that I agree with this statement is that
the equation doesn't provide an input for the mass of the object, it's distance
fallen only depends on the amount of time and the force of g.

Equation 3: v=gt

v= velocity of a falling object if released from rest (no air resistance)

g= acceleration of gravity at earth's surface

t= ime the object has been falling

Question 6: Which of the following statements do you agree with and why?

A. Heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects

B. Objects fall at the same speed (if no air resistance) and weight doesn't
matter.

Again, I agree with statement B. this equation doesn't have a variable that
depends on the mass of an object, only the velocity, force of gravity at the
earth's surface and the time an object falls, which means the mass of the
object is not relevant to this equation.

Question 7: For most of recorded history, people thought that heavy objects
naturally and under all conditions fall faster than lighter objects. Why did it
take us so long to realize the true state of affairs?

I think that the reason that it took so long for people to realize that objects
fall at the same rate, is because you can drop a feather and a rock at the
same time and the rock will always hit the ground first. If you don't stop to
think about that a bit deeper, then "logic" will allow you to believe that this is
the case for all objects. It took someone who was curious enough to
expirement with falling objects to actually get the data that changed the way
we think about falling objects.

Question 8: The Earth's gravity DOES exert a greater force on heavier objects
than lighter ones (these forces are called weight). However, with no air
resistance objects fall at the same speed in a given gravity field. The weight
difference can be thousands of pounds to one and the objects still fall at the
same speed. What physical property of mass compensates for the difference
in applied forces?

The physical propery that compensates is inertia. Inertia is the tendency to

do nothing or remain unchanged. Basically, it takes a lot to get heavy
(massive) objects moving and not a lot to get lighter (less massive) objects
going.

Equation 4: e=1-Tcold/Thot

e= efficiency of energy use

Tcold= the temperature of the environment surrounding the heat engine
Thot= the internal operating temperature of the engine.

Question 9: is it possible to achieve 100% efficiency, in theory, by lowering

the temperature of the environment surrounding the heat engine? Why or
why not?

Yes, in theory, if the temperature of the environment is 0 then the efficiency

of the motor would be 100 percent. e= 1-0/100=1

Question 10: Is it possible, in practice, to achieve 100% efficiency by lowering

the temperature of the environment surrounding the heat engine? Why or
why not?

No, because we cannot achieve absolute 0.

Question 11: Is it possible to achieve 100% efficiency, in theory, by raising

the internal operating temperature of the heat engine? Why or Why not?

Yes, in theory, if you raise the temperature internally, it would make the
efficiency 100, much the same as if you lowered the temperature to absolute
0.

Question 12: Is it possible to achieve 100% efficiency, in practice, by raising

the internal operating temperature of the heat engine? Why or why not?

No, it isn't. The reason is because the temperature would have to be infinitely
high to get to 100 percent. Seriously, check it out: e=1-1/10=0.9
Question 13: Is it possible to build a car using any kind of burning fuel, that is
100% efficient?

No, because we'd have to have a fuel that is burned 100% efficiently, plus our
motor would have to lose 0 energy to friction, which is just not possible.

Part 3: Learning about a Law of Physics

Newton's first law of motion states: Every object continues in a state of rest
or of uniform speed in a straight line unless acted on by a nonzero net force.

This is also known as the law of inertia. Things tend to stay how they are. You
can kind of think of inertia as resistance to change.

Examples

1. A rolling ball will forever roll in a straight line, unless it strikes a bowling
pin, for example
2. Dishes on top of a table cloth will stay on the table, even if the cloth is
yanked from under them (as long as the table cloth is pulled hard enough,
anyway)
3. And my favorite example: a couch potato wil stay on the couch (at rest)
until acted on by a force (someone dumping me off the couch)

Part 4: Explanation of Fermi's Paradox and possible Resolution.

Fermi's Paradox essentially boils down to: 1. There are billions of stars similar
to our sun, many of which are billions of years old than our sun. 2. Many of
these stars should have Earth-like planets. It follows that if a sun like ours had
a planet like ours, maybe it has life like ours.
3. Some of these civilizations might develop interstellar travel and even a a
slow pace, the entire galaxy could be crossed in a few million years. So what
gives, where my aliens at?

There are tons of ways to break this paradox down. My 4 favorites are

1. Intelligent civilizations are too far apart in space and time.

The universe is mind bogglingly large. I mean, try to wrap your head around
it. It's huge. Basically, we're too far apart in space to be able to make contact.
The rate that we'd be able to exchange information is way, way slow. But
maybe (ok, hopefully) the aliens just broadcast all their knowledge into space
and we need to find it, which leads us to

2. We aren't listening properly. We're talking about alien life here, they may
not transmit data the way that we do. It's like looking for a needle in a
haystack blinfolded.

3. Maybe we're deliberately not contacted. Humans can kind of suck in how
we treat each other, maybe we're on interstellar time out until we learn to
behave.

4. Maybe it is the nature of civilization to destroy itself. I mean, if people suck,

and could potentially be on interstellar time out, like I'd mentioned before,
maybe alien civilizations suck worse, and destroyed themselves before they
could make it to interstellar travel.