what are you talking about?
.png)
this "question" has been the bane of me for the past day and a half.
why is this question bad?
1. poorly defined.
this question makes a lot of assumptions, most of which are not obvious at first glance, & most factors are dependent on statements left intentionally ambiguous, for example the building is defined as "tall", does this mean that both objects reach their respective terminal velocities before they reach the ground? or does it mean that one of the objects reaches its terminal velocity, or both of them don't? considering every assumption would give different answers this question is poorly defined. additionally it is NEVER specified that both balls have 0 vertical velocity, as they are infact "projected", leaving another assumption to be made by the reader, which allows a potentially infinite amount of possibilites relating to the actual answer. finally, it is specified that object P has a greater mass, not a defined larger mass, this makes trying to actually calculate this question a lot more difficult as there are now inequalities about the mass and how it would affect the answer.
2. doesn't even contain the right answer
for some unholy, and frankly dissapointing reason, the actual answer that would have been correct by my assumptions of the problem, was that
T_p < T_q
D_p < D_q
this should be true, as horizontally the balls deceleration would be identical as the only opposing force is air resistance, which via a simpified model is not affected by mass meaning that
d_q would have a longer time, meaning it would travel a larger distance horizontally?
another of my attempts at graphing this monstrosity of a question: desmos link
Conclusion
i have a physics exam in exactly 48 hours at the writing of this blog post, and i am sorely dissapointed of the quality of the AQA a level physics specification, especially when it comes to assumptions
Post Scriptum
i'm stupid i forgot horizontal velocity wouldn't be cancelled out, this entire blog post is a rant based on nothing