There are none.A square is a 2-dimensional object and so there cannot be any 3-dimensional objects in it.
false Actually, the statement is true. You can imagine a 3-d object being made up of a lot of 2-d objects stacked on top of one another. But remember that, by definition, a 2-d object has no thickness (or, in this case, height). Height of one 2-d obect = 0 so height of n such objects = n*0 = 0 So a stack, no matter how many objects you use, will remain 0. And so you are not building up a 3-d object. Alternatively, you could imagine a cube (3-d) being built up from 6 square faces (2-d). Except that this is just the shell of the 3-d object, not the 3-d object itself.
Two-dimensional objects
neutral point
An objects motion or speed is distance divided by time.
A sphere.
they believe the object does not exist
they believe the object does not exist
No, objects cannot divorce. Only people can.
Object permanence.
With poor language we cannot assess. Any way the objects speed goes on increasing
Aggregation is a collection of objects where they are loosely associated with each other. Composition is when there is a tighter restriction between two, or more, objects where the composed object cannot exist without the other object, or objects.
Difficult is an adjective, so no, it cannot be an indirect object. Indirect objects are nouns or pronouns that receive the direct object.
A single object cannot be congruent. Congruence is a property of two or more objects.
Double the net force on it.
only finite objects can be known. spirit is not an object;so cannot be known.
The efficiency of packing of objects relies on the shape of the objects. There are two factors to take into account: empty space between objects (which cannot be avoided due to the object shape) and empty space around the outside of the objects and the packing container.