It is how bright is is t the observer on earth...so wuld be c!!
this any help?
To calculate the energy offered from food, multiply the number of grams of protein, carbohydrate, and fat by 4, 4, and 9, respectively.
Then add the results together.
Given: 500 grams of carbohydrates, 30 grams of protein, and 75 grams of fat in one day.
500 grams x 4 kcal/g = 2000 kcal
30 grams x 4 kcal/g = 120 kcal
75 grams x 9 kcal/g = 675 kcal
= 2795 kcal
From this data, you can calculate the percentage of k calories each of the energy nutrients give to the total.
Solution:
2000/2795 * 100% = 72% from carbohydrates
120/2795 * 100% = 4% from protein
675/2795 * 100% = 24% from fat
Total: 100%
The more energy needed, the higher the melting point or boiling point . As metals are giant lattice structures, the number of electrostatic forces to be broken is extremely large, and so metals have high melting and boiling points.
i would go with true.
<span>Notice a couple of things
different between (A) and (B). It was NOT the first time a biologist
proposed that species changed through time (so it's not B). But it
finally *solidified* that idea by giving "change through time"
(evolution) a MECHANISM. It gave a plausible explanation for WHY
species change over time, in a testable way that made sense and had
evidence to support it.
So it finally dismissed the idea that species are constant.
It also emphasized that the simple presence of *variation* within a population was a key reason for evolution.
While we're at it ... (C) is wrong because it's not *individuals* that
acclimate (adapt) to their environment, but the population (the species)
as a whole.
And (D) is wrong because it had nothing to do with economics or the monarchy.</span>
