In order to make his measurements for determining the Earth-Sun distance, Aristarchus waited for the Moon's phase to be exactly half full while the Sun was still visible in the sky. For this reason, he chose the time of a half (quarter) moon.
<h3 /><h3>How did Aristarchus calculate the distance to the Sun?</h3>
It was now possible for another Greek astronomer, Aristarchus, to attempt to determine the Earth's distance from the Sun after learning the distance to the Moon. Aristarchus discovered that the Moon, the Earth, and the Sun formed a right triangle when they were all equally illuminated. Now that he was aware of the distance between the Earth and the Moon, all he needed to know to calculate the Sun's distance was the current angle between the Moon and the Sun. It was a wonderful argument that was weakened by scant evidence. Aristarchus calculated this angle to be 87 degrees using only his eyes, which was not far off from the actual number of 89.83 degrees. But when there are significant distances involved, even slight inaccuracies might suddenly become significant. His outcome was more than a thousand times off.
To know more about how Aristarchus calculate the distance to the Sun, visit:
brainly.com/question/26241069
#SPJ4
Answer:
0.546 
Explanation:
From the given information:
The force on a given current-carrying conductor is:

where the length usually in negative (x) direction can be computed as

Now, taking the integral of the force between x = 1.0 m and x = 3.0 m to get the value of the force, we have:



![F = I (9.0) \bigg [\dfrac{x^3}{3} \bigg ] ^3_1 \hat k](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=F%20%3D%20I%20%20%289.0%29%20%5Cbigg%20%5B%5Cdfrac%7Bx%5E3%7D%7B3%7D%20%5Cbigg%20%5D%20%5E3_1%20%5Chat%20k)
![F = I (9.0) \bigg [\dfrac{3^3}{3} - \dfrac{1^3}{3} \bigg ] \hat k](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=F%20%3D%20I%20%20%289.0%29%20%5Cbigg%20%5B%5Cdfrac%7B3%5E3%7D%7B3%7D%20-%20%5Cdfrac%7B1%5E3%7D%7B3%7D%20%5Cbigg%20%5D%20%20%5Chat%20k)
where;
current I = 7.0 A
![F = (7.0 \ A) (9.0) \bigg [\dfrac{27}{3} - \dfrac{1}{3} \bigg ] \hat k](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=F%20%3D%20%287.0%20%5C%20A%29%20%20%289.0%29%20%5Cbigg%20%5B%5Cdfrac%7B27%7D%7B3%7D%20-%20%5Cdfrac%7B1%7D%7B3%7D%20%5Cbigg%20%5D%20%20%5Chat%20k)
![F = (7.0 \ A) (9.0) \bigg [\dfrac{26}{3} \bigg ] \hat k](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=F%20%3D%20%287.0%20%5C%20A%29%20%20%289.0%29%20%5Cbigg%20%5B%5Cdfrac%7B26%7D%7B3%7D%20%5Cbigg%20%5D%20%20%5Chat%20k)
F = 546 × 10⁻³ T/mT 
F = 0.546 
Answer:
cjkdodhfodjshdijcjsnchisbdhdosjdhsijsjf
Well, 0.1 is actually less than 0.7, but I understand what you're asking.
The coefficient of friction describes the relationship between two surfaces
that are sliding by each other. The higher the coefficient of friction is, the
'rougher' the meeting is, and the harder it is for one to slide over the other.
A skate blade against ice has a very low coefficient of friction. Sandpaper
against blue jeans has a high coefficient of friction.
A higher coefficient of friction means that when one thing is sliding over
the other one, friction robs more energy from the motion. It's harder to
push one thing over the other one, and when you let go, the moving one
slows down and stops sooner.
Air resistance is actually an example of friction. It prevents falling things
from falling as fast as they would if there were no air. The coefficient of
friction when something moves through air is pretty low. If the same
object were trying to move through molasses or honey, the coefficient
of friction would be greater.
Friction robs energy, and turns it into heat. So, especially in machinery with
moving parts, we want to make the coefficient of friction between the moving parts
as small as possible. That's what the OIL in a car's engine is for.
It's on your exam boards specification or just google it. the foundation paper will have the same equations as higher, but higher just has more.