In which of the following examples of motion, can the body be considered approximately a point object: (a) a railway carriage moving without jerks between two stations (b) a monkey sitting on top of a man cycling smoothly on a circular track (c) a spinning cricket ball that turns sharply on hitting the ground (d) a tumbling beaker that has slipped off the edge of a table.
Hint. A body counts as a 'point object' only when its own size is negligible compared to the distances relevant to the motion being described — check whether the body's shape, spin, or orientation actually matters to the question at hand.
Step 1 — (a) Railway carriage between stations. The distance between stations is enormously large compared to the carriage's own length, so its size can be ignored: a point object.
Step 2 — (b) Monkey on a cyclist on a circular track. The radius of the track is large compared to the size of the man-and-monkey system, so for describing their overall path around the track, they can be treated as a point object too.
Step 3 — (c) Spinning cricket ball turning sharply. The sharp turn on hitting the ground depends on the ball's own spin and surface, which are properties tied directly to its finite size, so its dimensions cannot be ignored here — not a point object.
Step 4 — (d) Tumbling beaker. Tumbling is a rotation of the beaker about its own shape and size as it falls, so its dimensions again matter directly to the motion being described — not a point object.
✦ Answer: (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) No (d) No.
Where students slip. Assuming (b) must be 'No' because a monkey and a cyclist are clearly not points in real life — the test isn't whether the body looks small, but whether its size matters to the specific motion being tracked, and here only the overall path around the large circular track is asked about.
