1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Rainbow [258]
3 years ago
8

Hi can you please help me, im really stuck

Physics
1 answer:
Lady bird [3.3K]3 years ago
3 0
I have the answer for A. Since there is blockage in the ear canal, some sound waves may not be able to get through or travel as quickly so you would have trouble hearing
You might be interested in
What is a key phrase for remembering the order of the planets?
horsena [70]
My very eager mother just served us nine pizzas
7 0
2 years ago
Why is pseudoscience bad?
USPshnik [31]

Answer:

It is quite difficult to picture a pseudoscientist—really picture him or her over the course of a day, a year, or a whole career. What kind or research does he or she actually do, what differentiates him or her from a carpenter, or a historian, or a working scientist? In short, what do such people think they are up to?

… it is a significant point for reflection that all individuals who have been called “pseudoscientists” have considered themselves to be “scientists”, with no prefix.

The answer might surprise you. When they find time after the obligation of supporting themselves, they read papers in specific areas, propose theories, gather data, write articles, and, maybe, publish them. What they imagine they are doing is, in a word, “science”. They might be wrong about that—many of us hold incorrect judgments about the true nature of our activities—but surely it is a significant point for reflection that all individuals who have been called “pseudoscientists” have considered themselves to be “scientists”, with no prefix.

What is pseudoscience?

“Pseudoscience” is a bad category for analysis. It exists entirely as a negative attribution that scientists and non‐scientists hurl at others but never apply to themselves. Not only do they apply the term exclusively as a discrediting slur, they do so inconsistently. Over the past two‐and‐a‐quarter centuries since the term popped into the Western European languages, a great number of disparate doctrines have been categorized as sharing a core quality—pseudoscientificity, if you will—when in fact they do not. It is based on this diversity that I refer to such beliefs and theories as “fringe” rather than as “pseudo”: Their defining characteristic is the distance from the center of the mainstream scientific consensus in whichever direction, not some essential property they share.

Scholars have by and large tended to ignore fringe science as regrettable sideshows to the main narrative of the history of science, but there is a good deal to be learned by applying the same tools of analysis that have been used to understand mainstream science. This is not, I stress, to imply that there is no difference between hollow‐Earth theories and geophysics; on the contrary, the differences are the point of the analysis. Focusing on the historical and conceptual relationship between the fringe and the core of the various sciences as that blurry border has fluctuated over the centuries provides powerful analytical leverage for understanding where contemporary anti‐science movements come from and how mainstream scientists might address them.

As soon as professionalization blossomed, tagging competing theories as pseudoscientific became an important tool for scientists to define what they understood science to be

The central claim of this essay is that the concept of “pseudoscience” was called into being as the shadow of professional science. Before science became a profession—with formalized training, credentialing, publishing venues, careers—the category of pseudoscience did not exist. As soon as professionalization blossomed, tagging competing theories as pseudoscientific became an important tool for scientists to define what they understood science to be. In fact, despite many decades of strenuous effort by philosophers and historians, a precise definition of “science” remains elusive. It should be noted however that the absence of such definitional clarity has not seriously inhibited the ability of scientists to deepen our understanding of nature tremendously.

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
What do work and energy have in common
spayn [35]

Energy and Work have the same unit of measurement which is Joules in SI units.

Explanation:

  • A Joule of Work is said to be done on an object when energy is transferred to that particular object.
  • If two objects are involved, when one object transfers energy onto the second, a joule of work is said to be done by the first object.  
  • Work is also the application of force on an object over a distance. So Work = Force × Displacement
  • Energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is in 2 forms - kinetic and potential.
  • Kinetic energy is defined as the energy of a moving object while potential energy is known as the energy that is stored within an object.
  • Kinetic Energy = 1/2 × mass × (velocity)²
  • Potential Energy = mass × acceleration due to gravity × height
  • Both energy and work are measured in Joules.
3 0
3 years ago
A skateboarder who travels 60 meters in 30 seconds has a speed of
natulia [17]

2m/s

Explanation:

Given parameters:

Distance traveled = 60m

time taken = 30seconds

Unknown:

Speed of skateboarder = ?

Solution:

Speed is the rate of change of distance with time taken. It is a scalar quantity that only revers magnitude;

    Speed = \frac{distance}{time}

    Speed = \frac{60}{30} = 2m/s

learn more:

Speed brainly.com/question/1548911

#learnwithBrainly

4 0
3 years ago
Is the bike rider in the picture above demonstrating kinetic energy or potential energy? you need to explain your answer.
soldi70 [24.7K]

Answer:

Kinetic energy

Explanation:

Kinetic energy is a function of velocity. Since the rider is moving at a certain speed, he's demonstrating kinetic energy. It can't be potential energy because potential energy encompass mgh

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What is the usual time ice takes to evaporate above a Bunsen burner?
    13·1 answer
  • You are standing on a large sheet of frictionless ice and holding a large rock. In order to get off the ice, you throw the rock
    5·1 answer
  • I NEED HELP ASAP WHAT IS THE DISTANCE MOVED IN 15 SECONDS
    8·2 answers
  • What determines the quality of a conductor
    11·1 answer
  • Regarding inferences about the difference between two population means, the sampling design that uses a pooled sample variance i
    11·1 answer
  • The deepest portion of the lithosphere is formed from
    13·1 answer
  • A runner jumps off the ground at a speed of 16m/s. At what angle did he jumps from the ground if he landed 8m away?
    10·1 answer
  • As the building collapses, the volume of air inside the building decreases, while the mass of the air stays the same. This means
    7·1 answer
  • Which statement about the sun's energy is correct?
    11·1 answer
  • A glass bottle of soda is sealed with a screw cap. The absolute pressure of the carbon dioxide inside the bottle is 1.50 x 105 P
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!