Answer:
Explanation:
For entry of light into tube of unknown refractive index
sin ( 90 - 25 ) / sinr = μ , μ is the refractive index of the tube , r is angle of refraction in the medium of tube
r = 90 - C where C is critical angle between μ and body medium in which tube will be inserted.
sin ( 90 - 25 ) / sin( 90 - C) = μ
sin65 / cos C = μ
sinC = 1.33 / μ , where 1.33 is the refractive index of body liquid.
From these equations
sin65 / cos C = 1.33 / sinC
TanC = 1.33 / sin65
TanC = 1.33 / .9063
TanC = 1.4675
C= 56°
sinC = 1.33 / μ
μ = 1.33 / sinC
= 1.33 / sin56
= 1.33 / .829
μ = 1.6 Ans
Answer:
static electricity and then lightning rod
I’m going to use molasses as an example of a substance.
The mass and volume both change when changing the amount of molasses.
However, the density does not change. This is because the mass and volume increase at the same rate/proportion!
Even though there is more molasses (mass) in test tube A, the molasses also takes up more space (volume). Therefore, the spacing between those tiny particles that make up the molasses is constant (does not change).
The size or amount of a material/substance does not affect its density.
I was about to say: because people generally get comfortable with
what they think they know, and don't like the discomfort of being told
that they have to change something they're comfortable with.
But then I thought about it a little bit more, and I have a different answer.
"Society" might initially reject a new scientific theory, because 'society'
is totally unequipped to render judgement of any kind regarding any
development in Science.
First of all, 'Society' is a thing that's made of a bunch of people, so it's
inherently unequipped to deal with scientific news. Anything that 'Society'
decides has a lot of the mob psychology in it, and a public opinion poll or
a popularity contest are terrible ways to evaluate a scientific discovery.
Second, let's face it. The main ingredient that comprises 'Society' ... people ...
are generally uneducated, unknowledgeable, unqualified, and clueless in the
substance, the history, and the methods of scientific inquiry and reporting.
There may be very good reasons that some particular a new scientific theory
should be rejected, or at least seriously questioned. But believe me, 'Society'
doesn't have them.
That's pretty much why.
Seismic wave is the answer
