Answer:
No we cannot
Explanation:
But what causes a ring to appear around the moon? This phenomenon is called a "moon halo." According to the National Weather Service, this ring of light, which is actually an optical illusion, forms around the moon when moonlight refracts off ice crystals in cirrus clouds, high up in the Earth's atmosphere.
Answer:
ummm there is nothing attached :(
Explanation:
Answer:
<h2>30 J</h2>
Explanation:
The work done by an object can be found by using the formula
workdone = force × distance
From the question
force = 6 N
distance = 5 m
We have
workdone = 6 × 5 = 30
We have the final answer as
<h3>30 J</h3>
Hope this helps you
You asked a question. I'm about to answer it.
Sadly, I can almost guarantee that you won't understand the solution.
This realization grieves me, but there is little I can do to change it.
My explanation will be the best of which I'm capable.
Here are the Physics facts I'll use in the solution:
-- "Apparent magnitude" means how bright the star appears to us.
-- "Absolute magnitude" means the how bright the star WOULD appear
if it were located 32.6 light years from us (10 parsecs).
-- A change of 5 magnitudes means a 100 times change in brightness,
so each magnitude means brightness is multiplied or divided by ⁵√100 .
That's about 2.512... .
-- Increasing magnitude means dimmer.
Decreasing magnitude means brighter.
+5 is 10 magnitudes dimmer than -5 .
-- Apparent brightness is inversely proportional to the square
of the distance from the source (just like gravity, sound, and
the force between charges).
That's all the Physics. The rest of the solution is just arithmetic.
____________________________________________________
-- The star in the question would appear M(-5) at a distance of
32.6 light years.
-- It actually appears as a M(+5). That's 10 magnitudes dimmer than M(-5),
because of being farther away than 32.6 light years.
-- 10 magnitudes dimmer is ( ⁵√100)⁻¹⁰ = (100)^(-2) .
-- But brightness varies as the inverse square of distance,
so that exponent is (negative double) the ratio of the distances,
and the actual distance to the star is
(32.6) · (100)^(1) light years
= (32.6) · (100) light years
= approx. 3,260 light years . (roughly 1,000 parsecs)
I'll have to confess that I haven't done one of these calculations
in over 50 years, and I'm not really that confident in my result.
If somebody's health or safety depended on it, or the success of
a space mission, then I'd be strongly recommending that you get
a second opinion.
But, quite frankly, I do feel that mine is worth the 5 points.
It is incorrect, because the identity of the original product has changed. Ca3(OH)2 does not exist! It is no longer calcium hydroxide. To balance an equation, you must manipulate the coefficients, a.k.a. the big numbers that go before reactants or products. Subscripts, the little numbers inside the reactants or products, cannot be changed without completely changing the substance.
