The hypothetical upper limit to the mass a star can be before it self-destructs due to the massive amount of fusion it would produce is apparently as a result of <u>Eddington luminosity</u>
<h3>What are stars?</h3>
Stars are a fixed luminous point in the sky which is a large and remote incandescent body
So therefore, the hypothetical upper limit to the mass a star can be before it self-destructs due to the massive amount of fusion it would produce is apparently as a result of Eddington luminosity
Learn more about stars:
brainly.com/question/13018254
#SPJ1
Answer:
No, it's not there.
Explanation:
For a machine to be 100% efficient, it has to be with an output which is equal to its input. But machines have an out put less than an input, hence efficiency below 100%.
Momentum is a product mass and velocity. If a certain object posses a kinetic energy, then it should have a momentum since it is moving which has a velocity. However, if the object is at rest and only has potential energy, then it would not have momentum. So, for the first question the answer would be yes, an object can have energy without having any momentum. For the second question, every object whether it is moving or at rest, possess some energy, potential for an object at rest and kinetic for an object that is moving. Thus, the answer would be no, an object having momentum would always have energy.
Answer:
1. W = F d = 20 N * 6 m = 120 J
2. F = W / d = 60 J / 2 m = 30 N
3. d = W / F = 350 J / 85 N = 4.12 m
4. P = W / t = F d / t = 45 N * 9 m / 10 s = 40.5 Watts
5. W = P t = 500 W * 120 sec = 60,000 J
6. t = W / P = 550 J / 310 W = 1.77 sec
Answer:
C
Explanation:
a series circuit would be an odd choice to power a battery or light a lamp when a direct would be much more efficient, and it's not converting types of energy, so C is the best possible answer
