false
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
No, objects cannot divorce. Only people can.
they believe the object does not exist
The basic difference between an opaque and a transparent object is that we can see through the transparent objects while through the opaque objects, we cannot see.
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.