Answer:
c. No. An equation may have consistent units but still be numerically invaid.
Explanation:
For an equation to be corrected, it should have consistent units and also be numerically correct.
Most equation are of the form;
(Actual quantity) = (dimensionless constant) × (dimensionally correct quantity)
From the above, without the dimensionless constant the equation would be numerically wrong.
For example; Kinetic energy equation.
KE = 0.5(mv^2)
Without the dimensionless constant '0.5' the equation would be dimensionally correct but numerically wrong.
Acceleration = (change in velocity) / (time for the change)
Change in velocity = (ending velocity) - (starting velocity)
Change in the plane's velocity = (10,000 m/s north) - (8,000 m/s north)
Change in the plane's velocity = 2,000 m/s north
Time for the change = 40 seconds
Acceleration = (2,000 m/s north) / (40 seconds)
<em>Acceleration = 50 m/s² north </em>
Rutherford overturned Thomson's model in 1911 with his well-known gold foil experiment in which he demonstrated that the atom has a tiny and heavy nucleus. Rutherford designed an experiment to use the alpha particles emitted by a radioactive element as probes to the unseen world of atomic structure.
The answer is A.Yes
Explanation:
The amplitude of a wave is the height of a wave as measured from the highest point of the wave to the lowest on the wave.
I don’t know what book you’re talking about so I can’t help but have a look online, you may be able to find it if you search up the book name and look around a few websites
