Heres the link to the youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFw0AxKYEj0

Answer all or don't answer at all. For questions that require calculations, please show all formulas used and detailed algebra steps concluding with the final numerical result. All i need help is with question 3 and question 4

Physics 161 Gravity Experiment Pre-lab assignment for second week In second week of the lab on gravity you will be asked to do linear regressions like the one in the paper by Pond & Williams. The linear regressions, or linear ts, will allow you to calculate the acceleration of gravity for all objects (plastic balls, cotton balls and coffee lters). You could use any software you feel comfortable with (EXCEL, Matlab, Mathematica, Python, ...). If you are new to linear regression, explore the website curvct, as it allows you to easily introduce the error bars of your experimental data points and it also computes the uncertainty in the slope. Tasks: 1. Watch the short video on YouTube following the link https://bit.lyl2kVBzID (remember that you can activate subtitles on YouTube). 2. Consider the following experimental data obtained by some experimenters dropping an object: Note: this could be any object, don't assume it is a rubber ball, cotton ball or coffee lter. Drop time (5) Drop distance (cm) 0.23 20 0.34 50 0.43 70 0.53 100 0.56 130 0.63 160 0.68 190 3. The experimenters are confident that their drop distances are accurate to within :1: 0.5 mm. The experimenters are not so certain of their time intervals due to their reaction time, but their stopwatches work down to 1/100 ofa second. Use curve.f1t (or MS Excel or your favorite graphing program) to plot the experimental values from the table above to determine the acceleration of the object. Make sure you work with SI units, and you label correctly all axes and write a suitable title for the plot. Hint: your plot will not be drop time versus drop distance as that will not yield a linear plot. 4. Does your plot yield a result of 9.8 W32? If so then what do you think the experimenters did that yielded fantastic results? If not what could be a source of systematic experimental error that would throw off results?