Force and Motion 4.2 Seminar by Elizabeth Zygmuntowicz https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5 ANSWER: Which claim was best supported and why? Did the discussion change your mind why or why not? Respond to a classmate: do this by commenting on their post, agree/disagree and why. en-us 2020-12-15 01:43:02 UTC 2020-12-16 23:40:05 UTC hello@padlet.com Derek Rodriguez derekr2 https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020766272 Claim 2 is correct according to the evidence given because the car slowed down before the crash. My evidence is card A ”In the crash scene in Iceworld Revenge. Vehicle 1 slows somewhat before it collides with Vehicle 2.In her own test. Claire did not observe Vehicle 1 slowing down before the crash. This shows that Claim 2 is correct according to the evidence given because the car slowed down because of the friction and give less force to the car so it does not went flying.]]> 2020-12-15 16:43:45 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020766272 Khris Angel Torres khrist2 https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020766932 I think evidence card D best supports Claim 1 because after the collision in the movie vehicle 1 changed direction showing that vehicle 2 had more mass that allowed it being hit and only slightly moved. Also evidence card B shows that after the crash, vehicle 2 had the least effect after the crash while vehicle 1 changed direction because vehicle 2 had more mass.

Plus if vehicle 1 was coming in at high speeds crashing into vehicle 2 then friction wouldn't be able to stop a car fly off the cliff if it was originally at rest.

]]> 2020-12-15 16:43:52 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020766932 Ashley Reyes ashleygianni_17 https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020767812 I was saying that Claim 2 is more convincing because evidence card A is saying that in the film the car slowed down while in Claire’s test it didn’t, if there’s more friction the vehicle would slow down then with less friction. Even if the vehicles had different masses, if there was a lot of friction it would also cause a big impact in the speed of the vehicles. We can see a similar reason as to why friction could be the reason on Card C, this card explains how different materials could’ve been used in the film which would cause different outcome to how slow or fast the vehicles were moving.  The science Seminar had a lot of similar reasoning which caused me to add on to what I was thinking and didn't change my mind.


]]> 2020-12-15 16:44:02 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020767812 Sara https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020768292 2020-12-15 16:44:07 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020768292 Sara ahmad Saleh sarra22 https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020774469 I chose claim 2 which is more convincing because evidence card A tells me that in Iceworld movie it slowed down before the collision. But for Claire It was the opposite. Now this makes me conclude that the surface played in role because Claire's surface had less friction= smoother surface. But in the film of ice world it had less friction which made the force applied not the opposite way.  Make it go fast, ZOOOOOM. Another evidence, card c, this tells me the different substances/materials of how much affects the friction (other words diverse of outcomes of how slow it is). In the icerevenge movie the material must be rubber because even after the collision it was slow. It didnt zoom and or went father than the cliff

]]> 2020-12-15 16:45:22 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020774469 Visham Persaud https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020775017 I said Claim 2 because according to evidence card C because in Claire use Ice which have a low friction which will cause Vehicle 2 to fall down the cliff. Iceworld might used rubber because when Vehicle 2 was on the edge of the cliff and Vehicle 1 hit Vehicle 2 , Vehicle 2   did not really move from the position.


 


]]> 2020-12-15 16:45:29 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020775017 Jaylen Alcantara https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020776005 I support claim 2 that the friction of the surface that was used in iceworld revenge was different from friction of the surface in Claire’s test. In Evidence card B it says that vehicle 1 slowed down and stop before going over the cliff but vehicle 2 didn’t stop going over the cliff meaning that there friction was different supporting my claim 2 that the friction is different . ]]> 2020-12-15 16:45:40 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020776005 Tobi https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020790345 I think it’s claim 1 because she most likely use the same surface but not the same mass. What I mean is that the mass in both cars are different in test 1 but in claire test the mass in both cars was the same. 


]]> 2020-12-15 16:48:24 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020790345 https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020790531 2020-12-15 16:48:27 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1020790531 Hesham Algaradi https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021292737  think its claim  1 because claim 1 makes more sense that mass has an effect because friction only slows down the object and can stop it but it depends on the mass. In evidence card  B  it tells us that in ice world revenge vehicle 2 moves slowly after the collision then stopping before it falls of the cliff. So it had less effect than vehicle 1 because it has more mass. Than vehicle.  In claire test vehicle 2 did not stop because it had the same  mass as vehicle 1 so it had the same effects. This shows that the problem in claires test was the mass of the vehicle. So IN ice world revenge the vehicle collided with each other which made vehicle 1 go the opposite way. 


]]> 2020-12-15 18:25:07 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021292737 Hafsa https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021294968 I think claim 1 is the most convincing because the vehicle in Claire's must’ve have a different mass than the one is Ice world Revenge.
Evidence Card E and B both supports the claim because Card B says that Claire’s had a different  effect than in iceworld, it moved faster. Card E is showing that what material could have been used and what made would’ve been used. I think that for Claire's, the vehicle must’ve been plastic and the must’ve been low

]]> 2020-12-15 18:25:34 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021294968 Stephanie G https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021299689 Claim 1 is more convincing because of how masses effect the end velocity. Which object is lighter will effect the outcome and if it will end how she wanted it to. The masses are important in order to get that bounce and the stop. The friction is also important but even with that the mass difference would change the velocitys.]]> 2020-12-15 18:26:28 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021299689 Lesley Romualdo https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021300794 Claim 2 makes more sense because evidence card C shows how different surfaces have a different amount of friction and ice has the least. Since Claire used ice as a surface and Vehicle 2 went flying instead of stopping, the ice probably didn’t have enough friction to stop it like it did in the movie and that in the movie, they probably used a different surface with a bit more friction in order to stop Vehicle 2]]> 2020-12-15 18:26:40 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021300794 Savannnah https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021303010 Both are equally supported based on how you use the evidence.]]> 2020-12-15 18:27:08 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021303010 Hope Baldwin https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021313065 2020-12-15 18:29:03 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021313065 Hope Baldwin https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021313393 2020-12-15 18:29:07 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021313393 Mailen https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021314311 It’s both claims because in evidence card b it talks about how the mass in vehicle 2 made it not stop and it also talks about how the friction changes midway in the scene]]> 2020-12-15 18:29:17 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021314311 selina https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021317145 I say claim 2 because plexiglass is differet than ice.Plexiglass has less frictan unlike ice which is more slipper.Making object 2 move while being pushed by object 1.]]> 2020-12-15 18:29:51 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021317145 phillipc4 https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021318679 i think it is claim 2 because evidence card c show that plexiglass   slows the veichal down]]> 2020-12-15 18:30:10 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021318679 justing8 https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021322237 its claim 1 because its bigger so its slower]]> 2020-12-15 18:30:53 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021322237 Both Claims (Mostly Claim 2) ethans31 https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021324040 I think that it is both because in the movie the foam wouldn’t have affected the metal so much but it may have gained enough speed because it is so light which would have pushed the it where it is only near the edge either which would have been pushed back by the mass of the other car is heavier & because of the friction from the plexiglass. Which would have been different for ice just not stopping it at all.]]> 2020-12-15 18:31:15 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1021324040 Jasmin Rod. https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1022119444 I am not sure how to explain this well but I think claim 1. Card E. shows the types of masses that the material has that the vehicle could have been made of which could have shown why the vehicle has a different mass and it could support the other cards like card 1 . 

]]> 2020-12-15 22:09:33 UTC https://padlet.com/ezygmuntowicz/wfd3ajk9a3umlfk5/wish/1022119444