V square - u square = 2as. here s=distance
here v squared= 18 squared=324
u squared=12 squared=144
324-144=2×36×s
180=72s
hence distance=2.5
Answer:
<em>The block hits the ground at 27.9 m/s</em>
Explanation:
<u>Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE)</u>
It's the energy stored in an object because of its height in a gravitational field.
It can be calculated with the equation:
U=m.g.h
Where m is the mass of the object, h is the height with respect to a fixed reference, and g is the acceleration of gravity or 
.
When the block is at the edge of the cliff it has potential energy that can be transformed into any other type of energy as it starts falling to the ground.
The GPE of the block of mass m=42 Kg at h=40 m is:
U = 42*9.8*40
U = 16,464 J
The block loses 81 J due to air resistance, thus the energy stored when it hits the ground is 16,464 J - 81 J = 16,383 J.
This energy is stored as kinetic energy, whose formula is:
Solving for v:
v = 27.9 m/s
The block hits the ground at 27.9 m/s
I think the correct answer would be true. A bonding molecular orbital is of lower energy than the atomic orbitals from which it was formed. Having a lower energy, it makes them more stable than that of the atomic orbitals. They are attracted by nuclei at the same time.
Answer:
0.68 m
Explanation:
We know that the speed of sound in air is a product of frequency and wavelength. Taking speed of sound in air as 340 m/s
V=frequency*wavelength
Then wavelength is given by 350/500=0.68 m
Therefore, to repeat constructive interference at the listener's ear, a distance of 0.68 m is needed
If a group of scientists have access to one data, from the data they can draw conclusions either through mathematics or just thought experiments.
Those thought experiments is different for any scientist, no one thinks the same especially when the topic is difficult.
For example when talking about parallel universes, scientists have come up with the weirdest examples of a multiverse. Some thinking of a brane universe, while others say that its a landscape universe, quilted universe. All of their 'evidence' seems correct but they have opposite meanings.
A weird analogy is 'religion'. All the religions seem to have 'evidences' (hardly) that attract people towards it, they all make sense but that doesn't mean that their evidence is right.
----
Now if they're trying to break down the data using maths, there could be a great uncertainty and measurement error that if done enough could change the whole idea behind the data.
Interesting question, I can babble for days for this but lets keep it as that
