All categories

3 years ago

Explain why a law is accepted as fact, but a theory is not.

Physics

2 answers:

melamori03 [73]3 years ago

3 0

Because a law is proven, a theory is just an explanation that may not be correct.

Musya8 [376]3 years ago

3 0

Notice the difference?:

Theory is a debatable idea.

An law is accepted also can be a proven fact

If you think about it if a law was ever a theory do you think anyone would follow it?
My opinion is NO

To make it easier:
Law is 100% proven
A theory is 0% proven

You might be interested in

3. Magnetite is a) Natural magnet (b)Artificial magnet (c) Not a magnet

andrey2020 [161]

$\huge \bold \red {Aɴswᴇʀ}$

Magnetite is a Natural magnet

8 0

1 year ago

Read 2 more answers

When a liquid has vapor pressure equal to atmospheric pressure, it?

Olenka [21]

When vapor pressure equals atmospheric pressure, it's called boiling point of that liquid.

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

According to the nebular theory of solar system formation, which law best explains why the solar nebula spun faster as it shrank

Lerok [7]

The law of conservation of angular momentum.

What is angular momentum?

Angular momentum is the rotational analog of linear momentum in physics. It is a conserved quantity, meaning the total angular momentum of a closed system remains constant. Both the direction and magnitude of angular momentum are conserved.

What is the law of conservation of angular momentum?

The law of conservation of angular momentum asserts that a system's total angular momentum is conserved when there is no external torque present. In other words, the magnitude and direction of the total angular momentum of an isolated system remain constant.

According to the Nebular Theory, the solar system originated as a massive, slowly rotating cloud of gas measuring around one light-year in diameter. As the cloud cooled, its own gravity caused it to collapse. It distorted into a revolving pancake shape due to the conservation of angular momentum, which required it to spin faster as it shrank.

Hence, the law of conservation of angular momentum best explains why the solar nebula spun faster as it shrank in size.

To leans more about the law of angular momentum link is given:

brainly.com/question/26870978?

#SPJ4

6 0

10 months ago

Comparativo entre a máquina a vapor de Neu carmen e James Watt!

Bas_tet [7]

Answer:

jame watt

Explanation:

James Watt tiña máis importancia que outro home

3 0

3 years ago

An object weighs 63.8 N in air. When it is suspended from a force scale and completely immersed in water the scale reads 16.8 N.

I am Lyosha [343]

Answer:

The density of this object is approximately $1.36\; {\rm kg \cdot L^{-1}}$ .

The density of the oil in this question is approximately $0.600\; {\rm kg \cdot L^{-1}}$ .

(Assumption: the gravitational field strength is $g =9.806\; {\rm N \cdot kg^{-1}}$ )

Explanation:

When the gravitational field strength is $g$ , the weight $(\text{weight})$ of an object of mass $m$ would be $m\, g$ .

Conversely, if the weight of an object is $(\text{weight})$ in a gravitational field of strength $g$ , the mass $m$ of that object would be $m = (\text{weight}) / g$ .

Assuming that $g =9.806\; {\rm N \cdot kg^{-1}}$ . The mass of this $63.8\; {\rm N}$ -object would be:

$\begin{aligned} \text{mass} &= \frac{\text{weight}}{g} \\ &= \frac{63.8\; {\rm N}}{9.806\; {\rm N \cdot kg^{-1}}} \\ &\approx 6.506\; {\rm kg}\end{aligned}$ .

When an object is immersed in a liquid, the buoyancy force on that object would be equal to the weight of the liquid that was displaced. For instance, since the object in this question was fully immersed in water, the volume of water displaced would be equal to the volume of this object.

When this object was suspended in water, the buoyancy force on this object was $(63.8\; {\rm N} - 16.8\; {\rm N}) = 47.0\; {\rm N}$ . Hence, the weight of water that this object displaced would be $47.0 \; {\rm N}$ .

The mass of water displaced would be:

$\begin{aligned}\text{mass} &= \frac{\text{weight}}{g} \\ &= \frac{47.0\: {\rm N}}{9.806\; {\rm N \cdot kg^{-1}}} \\ &\approx 4.793\; {\rm kg}\end{aligned}$ .

The volume of that much water (which this object had displaced) would be:

$\begin{aligned}\text{volume} &= \frac{\text{mass}}{\text{density}} \\ &\approx \frac{4.793\; {\rm kg}}{1.00\; {\rm kg \cdot L^{-1}}} \\ &\approx 4.793\; {\rm L}\end{aligned}$ .

Since this object was fully immersed in water, the volume of this object would be equal to the volume of water displaced. Hence, the volume of this object is approximately $4.793\; {\rm L}$ .

The mass of this object is $6.50\; {\rm kg}$ . Hence, the density of this object would be:

$\begin{aligned} \text{density} &= \frac{\text{mass}}{\text{volume}} \\ &\approx \frac{6.506\; {\rm kg}}{4.793\; {\rm L}} \\ &\approx 1.36\; {\rm kg \cdot L^{-1}} \end{aligned}$ .

(Rounded to $\text{$3$ sig. fig.}$ )

Similarly, since this object was fully immersed in oil, the volume of oil displaced would be equal to the volume of this object: approximately $4.793\; {\rm L}$ .

The weight of oil displaced would be equal to the magnitude of the buoyancy force: $63.8\; {\rm N} - 35.6\; {\rm N} = 28.2\; {\rm N}$ .

The mass of that much oil would be:

$\begin{aligned}\text{mass} &= \frac{\text{weight}}{g} \\ &= \frac{28.2\: {\rm N}}{9.806\; {\rm N \cdot kg^{-1}}} \\ &\approx 2.876\; {\rm kg}\end{aligned}$ .

Hence, the density of the oil in this question would be:

$\begin{aligned} \text{density} &= \frac{\text{mass}}{\text{volume}} \\ &\approx \frac{2.876\; {\rm kg}}{4.793\; {\rm L}} \\ &\approx 0.600\; {\rm kg \cdot L^{-1}} \end{aligned}$ .

(Rounded to $\text{$3$ sig. fig.}$ )

7 0

2 years ago