All categories

2 years ago

Well into the twentieth century, many scientists believed the ocean floor was

1 answer:

4 0

The correct answer is B. flat. It was believed that if one could reach the bottom of the ocean that they would find a flat floor. That is because they didn't have the technology to dive so deep to explore it, but eventually things changed and it was found out that it's not just a flat panel and that it's full of craters and similar things.

You might be interested in

In the nuclear fission process mass is converted into energy. Determine the total mass that must be converted to energy in one y

brilliants [131]

Answer:

1) Mass that needs to be converted at 100% efficiency is 0.3504 kg

2) Mass that needs to be converted at 30% efficiency is 1.168 kg

Explanation:

By the principle of mass energy equivalence we have

$E=mc^{2}$

where,

'E' is the energy produced

'm' is the mass consumed

'c' is the velocity of light in free space

Now the energy produced by the reactor in 1 year equals

$Energy=Power\times time\\\\\therefore Energy=1\times 10^{9}\times 365\times 24\times 3600\\\\Energy=31.536\times 10^{15}Joules$

Thus the mass that is covertred at 100% efficiency is

$mass=\frac{Energy}{c^{2}}\\\\mass=\frac{31.536\times 10^{15}}{(3\times 10^{8})^{2}}\\\\mass=\frac{31.536\times 10^{15}}{9\times 10^{16}}\\\\\therefore mass=0.3504kg$

Part 2)

At 30% efficiency the mass converted equals

$mass|_{30}=\frac{mass|_{100}}{0.3}\\\\mass|_{30}=\frac{0.3504}{0.3}\\\\mass|_{30}=1.168kg$

8 0

3 years ago

What has been gravity's apparent role in our solar system so far? Focus on the formation of planets, individual orbits, alignmen

masya89 [10]

Gravity is one of the significant forces of the universe. It is the force that draws other objects closer to the center of another object. The bigger the object, the higher its force of gravity and nearby objects are accelerated towards the big mass.

It is this force of gravity that keeps the planets in the solar system orbiting around the sun. The suns gravitational pull is stronger than those of the planets hence pulls the planets on their orbits around the star. Gravity also played a part in the formation of the planets. Gravity caused the condensation of dust and rocks into a mass that continually attracted more matter as it gained mass (due to gaining more associated gravitational pull).

6 0

2 years ago

When a certain metal is illuminated with light of frequency 3.0×1015 hz, a stopping potential of 7.27 v is required to stop the

slega [8]

Hf = Ф + Kmax

Where,
h = 4.14*10^-15 eV.s
f = 3.0*10^15 Hz
Kmax = 7.27 eV
Ф = ?

Therefore,
Ф= hf-Kmax = 4.14*10^-5*3.0*10^15 - 7.27 = 5.15 eV

7 0

2 years ago

In general, court in the United States have repeatedly struck down efforts to include creationism or intelligent design in publi

OverLord2011 [107]

Because they are not supported by the results of any legitimate investigation
that's conducted in accordance with the Scientific Method.

You may say:
"Well then, teach both lines of reasoning,
and let each student decide for himself."

This is suggested by the same people who aren't ready to let their
fourth-grader choose his own clothing, dinner menu, or school.
And it sounds reasonable to a vast mass of citizens who have decided
for them selves that the jury is still out on climate change.

What I'm saying is this:

-- The Scientific Method is a METHOD of investigation that's designed
and developed to remove the effects of human prejudice from the
collection and evaluation of evidence, and to be able to tell bogus
conclusions apart from true ones. It's the most reliable way we have
of asking and answering questions about the natural world.

-- Some questions CAN'T be studied with the Scientific Method,
because experiments generally can't be constructed. These include
matters of religion and faith. Nobody can flatly state that those are
right or wrong. We have no reliable way to say, either way.
The only way to decide is . . . faith.

-- It is illegitimate to take the answer to a question of faith that can't be
derived scientifically, and a scientifically derived conclusion, set them
down next to each other on the same table, and pretend that they can be
compared.

-- When you put them next to each other, say that they're equivalent,
and tell people "go ahead and choose one or the other", the situation
is bogus, the comparison is dishonest, and people who are untrained
or uneducated or immature are not qualified to "choose".

That's why.

This is my opinion. I could be wrong.

Personally, I happen to be a believer. But I cannot prove anything I believe
to anyone else ... not with rational argument, and not with evidence. Those are
elements of the scientific method. They're not applicable, and they don't work,
in matters of faith.

8 0

3 years ago

A(n) 1700 kg car is moving along a level road at 21 m/s. The driver accelerates, and in the next 10 s the engine provides 22000

allochka39001 [22]

The final speed of the car at the given conditions is 30.1 m/s.

The given parameters:

Mass of the car, m = 1700 kg
Velocity of the car, v = 21 m/s
Time of motion, t = 10 s
Additional energy provided by the engine, E₁ = 22,000 J
Energy used in overcoming friction, E₂ = 3,666.67 J

The change in the energy applied to the car is calculated as;

$\Delta E = E_1 - E_2\\\\\Delta E = 22,000 \ J \ - \ 3,666.67 \ J\\\\\Delta E = 18,333.33 \ J$

The final speed of the car is calculated as follows;

$\Delta E = \frac{1}{2} m(v_f^2 - v_0^2)\\\\v_f^2 - v_0^2 = \frac{2\Delta E}{m} \\\\v_f^2 = \frac{2\Delta E}{m} + v_0^2\\\\v_f = \sqrt{ \frac{2\Delta E}{m} + v_0^2} \\\\v_f = \sqrt{ \frac{2\times 18,333.4}{1700} + (21)^2} \\\\v_f = 30.1 \ m/s$

Thus, the final speed of the car at the given conditions is 30.1 m/s.

Learn more about change in kinetic energy here: brainly.com/question/6480366

4 0

2 years ago