This is just a general observation that my two balls are not alike and having some difference in size. Is there any logic for that difference or only i have this issue?
211228
Your testicles should be about the same size. One often is lower than the other, which is more a reflection of where it is at in the sperm producing cycle.
195561
There was a English golf ball called Robinhood that was smaller than the American ball.  Sometimes you find them on e-bay
152621
two womens breasts are the same and it is actually VERY common for one to be bigger than the other. it may not be a dramatic difference...in some cases though it is a little bit more noticeable. I notice that my right one is smaller than my left...not by much..enough for me to notice but not anyone else...maybe a doctor...but thats it. As for them being hard and the lumps, you really should see a doctor about that. I doubt it has anything to do with you being hit there...it's mostly likely an underlying reason. So see a doc and tell them your worries...its the best way to get answers.
319866
usually one testicle is bigger just as one breast is one foot is one hand is.. and one side of the brain is.. and right or left is all equal.. bigger longer and more stronger than the other
642063
I really doubt it is the same quality. There's gotta be a difference.
572394
i second the a answer.  the field diameter decreases.  even if you solve this problem by process of elimination b c and d are all ridiculous answers if you give it any thought.  e not correct either, because it would occupy a larger portion since you are "zoomed in" and focusing on a smaller section of the slide or whatever so it would occupy a larger portion of the field.
177807
Seperate balls in 3 packs of 3.\n\nFirst weigh pack 1 against pack 2. If both are the same, then your heavy ball is in pack 3. If one weighs more, you ball is in that pack.\n\nSecond you weigh 2 balls in the heavy pack. If both balls are the same, it's the 3rd ball. If one weighs more, that's your ball.\n\nToodles.
96017
For the same reasons we all have different builds, skin colors, hair types and colors, sizes of our feet and hands, etc. Nature made a choice from the thousands of variables available.\n\nI like to think that penises are much like fingerprints, where no two are exactly alike. Yeah, many are similar, but I think you get what I'm saying.\n\nAccept what you have.
246058
He did not really answer his own question.  Friction technically is not caused when two objects come in contact, it occurs when two objects that are in contact move relative to each other.  There is no friction between stationary objects.  Megan already answered the question on the microscopic scale and I agree with her.
44133
I don't have an answer for you except that it has something to do with the softness of the lead, I think.  But that made me laugh, so thanks for that, and thanks for the 2  :-)
158417
i dont think there is a difference between the two. =o
168201
hey! the force acting on these spheres is the buoyant force.  buoyant force is equal to the weight of the liquid displaced by the immersed object.As in this case the weight of both spheres is the same [m*g i.e(1kg*9.8m/s2)] the buoyant force will also be the same.hence none of them "appears to lose" and both appear same.get that??!
38552
Why that?\nEvidently, you’re supposing that with bigger balls you could get more sperm….eh?\nSorry, it’s just very difficult to have a longer penis just imagine with the testicles.\nIt’s quite impossible!
450067
according to the conservation of momentum the second ball has the same momentum, though it depends on the angle at which the first ball collides with the second\n\nalso if you put English on the cue ball\n\nif it is a solid shot, the cue ball can stop and transfer all momentum to the second ball\n\nhope i could help
369258
Because they'r smaller and lighter, larger shinpads affect ball control or at least they do for me, lol
471759
NO!!  If people would stop (mis)quoting half-remembered precepts here, and do a spot of THINKING, instead, we might get somewhere.\n\n1.  If a moving spherical ball directly hits an identical free, stationary ball head on in an elastic collision, the moving ball STOPS, and the previously stationary one heads off with the original velocity of the other.  So ALL of the moving ball's K.E. has been transferred to the other ball.  \n\nHere are two ways to see this:\n\n1a.  The device known somewhat indelicately to British schoolboys as "Newton's balls" (but in squeamish America as "The Swinging Wonder") provides an excellent table-top demonstration of this.  Most undergraduate physics instructors must haul this out from time to time.\n\n1b.  You can easily solve it analytically, but a thought experiment will also demonstrate it.  In the originally stationary ball's frame, let the other ball approach with speed v.  Now shift (with an appropriately directed speed of v/2) to the frame in which the two equal balls are simply approaching each other, each with a speed in this frame of that same v/2 (oppositely directed, of course)!  Clearly, from the symmetry of the situation, they'll bounce off each other with the same (oppositely directed) speeds in this frame, still of v/2.  Now go back to the original frame: the previously moving ball is now completely stationary, while the originally stationary one is haring off with speed v.  (You may need to make little sketches of what is happening as viewed successively from each of these frames, to see this; I admit that that's what I did.)\n\n2a.  A similar approach can be used to solve the general case for an arbitrary ratio of masses, m (initially moving)/M (initially stationary).  Hint: have the balls approach one another in their center of mass frame with equal but opposite momenta of mv and  MV.  They'll clearly bounce off one another in such a frame, retaining the same values of their respective (but now oppositely directed) speeds.  Then you can do the other frame-jugglings from there. \n\nHowever, this analytical approach, done accurately, is a tedious mess.  So, to appreciate the general problem more physically, consider just the following:\n\n2b.  The case of m << M.\n\nConsider the "equal but opposite momentum" frame for these two balls, in which MV = mv.  This means that if ball M is VERY MASSIVE, the speed it will have in such a frame, V = (m/M)v; that is, it's VERY SMALL compared to little puny m's high speed.\n\nSo, transforming to the frame in which M itself (the big guy) is initially stationary takes only a speed shift of O(m/M)v.  (In fact identically so.)  This only affects the speed of puny m minutely, so m's initial K.E. is still of order O(m v^2).  (There's no need to do picky constant book-keeping for these purposes.)  \n\nNow after the collision: In the original frame, Big M is now moving (and in fact at 2V if you think about it.)  But, being loose about the constants, M's K.E is only O(MV^2).  \n\nSo, the ratio (m's K.E.)/(M's K.E.) ~ (mv^2)/(MV^2)\n\n= (m/M)(M/m)^2 (since mv = MV)\n\n= M/m.\n\nBINGO!  The little bugger still carries by far the larger amount of the kinetic energy.  The massive ball (i) moves sluggishly, and (ii) because  K.E. involves both mass but also the SQUARE of the speed, the TWO POWERS of (small) speed more than cancel out the effect of its (large) mass.\n\nThis is a well-known fact in particle collision theory, that little particles basically bounce off big ones.  \n\nYou could also say that it's well-known in "space billiards": when spacecraft head close to Jupiter to receive a "gravitational sling-shot effect" that sends them off to the outermost planets.  \n\nIt's more complicated because of 3-D effects there, but analogous frame-shifting methods can be used to show that the spacecraft can pick up considerable speed AND change
455725
No... usualyy different...\n\nGo to a doc if you are at all worried.