They expend more oxygen. Littler endotherms lose warmth to the earth proportionately speedier than huge endotherms: less warm mass, protecting layers in littler creatures are less successful by dint of being more slender, and more prominent surface region to volume proportion implies snappier radiation of warmth
Wow ! This one could have some twists and turns in it.
Fasten your seat belt. It's going to be a boompy ride.
-- The buoyant force is precisely the missing <em>30N</em> .
-- In order to calculate the density of the frewium sample, we need to know
its mass and its volume. Then, density = mass/volume .
-- From the weight of the sample in air, we can closely calculate its mass.
Weight = (mass) x (gravity)
185N = (mass) x (9.81 m/s²)
Mass = (185N) / (9.81 m/s²) = <u>18.858 kilograms of frewium</u>
-- For its volume, we need to calculate the volume of the displaced water.
The buoyant force is equal to the weight of displaced water, and the
density of water is about 1 gram per cm³. So the volume of the
displaced water (in cm³) is the same as the number of grams in it.
The weight of the displaced water is 30N, and weight = (mass) (gravity).
30N = (mass of the displaced water) x (9.81 m/s²)
Mass = (30N) / (9.81 m/s²) = 3.058 kilograms
Volume of displaced water = <u>3,058 cm³</u>
Finally, density of the frewium sample = (mass)/(volume)
Density = (18,858 grams) / (3,058 cm³) = <em>6.167 gm/cm³</em> (rounded)
================================================
I'm thinking that this must be the hard way to do it,
because I noticed that
(weight in air) / (buoyant force) = 185N / 30N = <u>6.1666...</u>
So apparently . . .
(density of a sample) / (density of water) =
(weight of the sample in air) / (buoyant force in water) .
I never knew that, but it's a good factoid to keep in my tool-box.
8.0 m/s if there is no air resistance. (B)
Less if there IS any air resistance.
Before Pluto was discovered, it was predicted. Astronomers had observed that massive objects can affect the orbits of its neighbors, and, after seeing deviations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune, assumed something substantial existed beyond their orbits.
When Pluto was spotted, it was thought to be the predicted object and was identified as a ninth planet.
A few decades later, astronomers started discovering more and more objects around other stars and didn’t know whether to call them planets or not. There appeared to be a need to define what a planet means, and that led to what some people consider Pluto’s demotion to a dwarf planet.
The International Astronomical Union decided that full-sized planets must orbit the sun, have a round shape, and have cleared their orbits of other objects. Pluto fulfills the first two criteria, but not the third.
It still goes around the sun, it’s round enough, it’s got moons, and behaves like a planet, but the idea is that Pluto did not form the same way as the rest of the planets. Pluto’s orbit is both eccentric and inclined more than the rest of the planets by about 17 degrees. That’s suggests something is different about this object.
This debate about whether to call it a planet or not is silly, because it doesn’t matter to Pluto what you call it. It is an interesting object, goes around the sun, and shows geology and an atmosphere.
There’s a tendency to define objects based on what they are now, but nothing is constant in the universe. There are some issues with the nomenclature, and a definition today may not apply to the same object tomorrow.
