Answer:
Correct answer is 2B
Explanation:
The electric field magnitude and magnetic field magnitude in an electromagnetic waves are related as under
where 'c' is velocity of light in the medium of transmission
According to the given question if we double the electric field we have
Thus the magnetic field also doubles
Question:
A cork floats on the surface of an incompressible liquid in a container exposed to atmospheric pressure. The container is then sealed and the air above the liquid is evacuated. The cork:
A. sinks slightly
B. rises slightly
C. floats at the same height
D. bobs up and down about its old position
Answer:
The correct answer is C) floats at the same height
Explanation:
The liquid is incompressible because its density very high and leaves no room for further compaction whether or not there is atmospheric pressure. So when you put a cork on the liquid, pressure or no pressure, there is no displacement hence it floats on the same height regardless of the absence of air.
Cheers!
Answer: if the heat energy is wasted, then, energy is lost forever.
Explanation: According to conservative of energy, which state that energy is neither created nor destroyed but only convert from one form to another.
The energy which should have been used in one form has been converted to heat energy which could have been used for for thing or the other, if there is nothing the heat energy can be used for, then the energy is wasted. This is tantamount to being lost forever.
The adversarial system is rigid – the roles are proscribed – the prosecutor wants to convict, the defendant wants a decision of not guilty. They are not just allowed but expected to bias their presentation, trusting the truth to come out between the adversaries. Science certainly has its sides of partisanship and bias. But these sides are self-imposed and can be abandoned at any time. While a prosecutor should not lie or hide evidence, and should drop a case if they become convinced the defendant is innocent, they wake up in the morning with no choice about which side of the argument they will come down on. In the criminal justice system the advocates are rigidly fixed in their roles and the jurors are rigidly neutral (the process to find a random neutral jury took as long as the trial itself). In science, the advocates are the same people as the jurors. And as a result they have to be willing to be flexible and change their minds. A good scientist shouldn’t have a pre-determined rigid answer to a question.
Lack of investigation – we jurors were told over and over not to investigate the situation ourselves. We were to make our decision only on the basis of the evidence presented to us. I can tell you in the case I was on there were at least two whopping big questions hanging over the case that nearly every juror in the room identified as very important but not addressed by either lawyer. Either one of them (whether the defendant’s schedule allowed time to drink before being stopped in the car, whether a particular medical condition could affect breathalyzer tests) could have changed the outcome. We could have answered one of these with 10 minutes on google and the other with some very simple subpoena of records. But we couldn’t use any of this. Scientists obviously are the opposite – if they need more information, they are expected to go get it before making an opinion.
Reliance on personal testimony – although science and trials share a focus on evidence, trials recognize testimony of individual people under oath as a major form of evidence. They certainly acknowledge the possibility of lying and explicitly instruct jurors to decide what testimony they believe. My case was unusual in that there was so much video footage, but still a majority of the case came down to testimony by the police officers, and most cases even a few years ago would have had only testimony. Science on the other hand, doesn’t accept testimony. Or does it? What else is the methods and results section of a paper? I’m on the fence whether science is so different on this one.
