Rough surfaces create more friction than smooth surfaces. Thats why cars have tires. Its also why we use rubber mats in areas that might get wet. In your bathtub, you may even use No-Slip tape. No-slip is another way of saying the items has a lot of friction. In Figure 1.9, the blades of the skates are very smooth. Thats why you cant slide across ice with shoes. The soles of your shoes are much rougher than skates. The rougher surface of shoes causes more friction and slows you down. Heavier objects also have more friction. A heavy object presses down with more force. The surfaces are held together more tightly. This makes the surfaces harder to slide past each other. Did you ever try to push something heavy across the floor? Heavy objects are much harder to push than light objects.

Question: "Why can't you slide across an ice in your shoes the way you would in skates?"

Response: "The blades of the skates are very smooth"

A: yes

Imagine you are standing in a farm field in central Illinois. The land is so flat you can see for miles and miles. On a clear day, you might see a grain silo 20 miles away. You might think to yourself, it sure is flat around here. If you drive one hundred miles to the south, the landscape changes. In southern Illinois, there are rolling hills. Why do you think this is? What could have caused these features? There are no big rivers that may have eroded and deposited this material. The ground is capable of supporting grass and trees, so wind erosion would not explain it. To answer the question, you need to go back 12,000 years. Around 12,000 years ago, a giant ice sheet covered much of the Midwest United States. Springfield, Illinois, was covered by over a mile of ice. Its hard to imagine a mile thick sheet of ice. The massive ice sheet, called a glacier, caused the features on the land you see today. Where did glaciers go? Where can you see them today? Glaciers are masses of flowing ice.

Question: "What's the difference between central and southern Illinois?"

Response: "Central Illinois has rolling hills and Southern Illinois is flat"

A: no

Modern criticism of Pope focuses on the man, his circumstances and motivations, prompted by theoretical perspectives such as Marxism, feminism and other forms of post-structuralism. Brean Hammond focuses on Pope's singular achievement in making an independent living solely from his writing. Laura Brown (1985) adopts a Marxist approach and accuses Pope of being an apologist for the oppressive upper classes. Hammond (1986) has studied Pope's work from the perspectives of cultural materialism and new historicism. Along Hammond's lines, Raymond Williams explains art as a set of practices influenced by broad cultural factors rather than simply the vague ideas of genius alone. Hayden Carruth, wrote that it was "Pope's rationalism and pandeism with which he wrote the greatest mock-epic in English literature." In Politics and Poetics of Transgression (1985) Peter Stallybrass and Allon White charge that Pope drew upon the low culture which he despised in order to produce his own "high art". They assert Pope was implicated in the very material he was attempting to exclude, not dissimilar to observations made in Pope's time. Colin Nicholson reads the poetry in terms of the Financial Revolution, showing how Pope responded to the corruption of the traditional 'landed interest' by the newly dominant 'moneyed interest'. Feminists have also criticised Pope's works. Ellen Pollak's The Poetics of Sexual Myth (1985) argues that Pope followed an anti-feminist tradition, that regarded women as inferior to men both intellectually and physically. Carolyn Williams contends that a crisis in the male role during the 18th century in Britain impacted Pope and his writing.

Question: "Who are Pope's supporters?"

Response: "Brean hammond"

A:
no