I'm not sure about the distance to the nearest star, but it's probably about 4 light-years (L-y).
1 L-y = 1.86 * 10E5 mi/sec * 3600 sec/hr * 24 hr/day * 365 day/yr
1 L-y = 5.9 *10E12 mi and 4 L-y = 2.3 *10E13 mi distance to star
2.3 * 10E13 mi / 900 mi/hr = 2.6 * 10E10 hr hours to star
2.6 * 10E10 hr / (24 hr/day) = 1.1 * 10E9 day days to star
1.1 * 10E9 day / 365 day/yr = 3 * 10E6 yr = 3 million years to star
It heats up. the ice transforms directly from a solid to a vapor, releasing dust particles. the solar wind sweeps the material and it forms what to appears to be a tail.
If it were possible to move a star towards the earth then its apparent magnitude number would decrease while its absolute magnitude number would stay the same.
Definition of apparent magnitude:
The luminosity of a celestial body (such as a star) as observed from the earth compare absolute magnitude.
So for example, the apparent magnitude of the Sun is -26.7 and is the brightest celestial object we can see from Earth. However, if the Sun were 10 parsecs away, its apparent magnitude would be +4.7, only about as bright as Ganymede appears to us on Earth.
Definition of absolute magnitude:
Absolute magnitude is a measure of the luminosity of a celestial object on an inverse logarithmic astronomical magnitude scale.
To learn more about apparent magnitude here
brainly.com/question/2949443
#SPJ4
C) a solid lower part and a liquid upper part
Explanation:
The physical nature of the earth's core is made up of a solid lower part and a liquid upper part.
The core is the innermost part of the earth and it is made up of metallic minerals.
- It has the highest temperature and pressure of all the layers of the earth.
- The core is divided into two. Outer and inner core.
- Outer core is made up of molten metallic minerals. It is the layer where the earth geomagnetic field originates.
- The inner core is solid metallic ball.
- Evidence from seismic waves has furnished geoscientists with this knowledge.
learn more:
Crust brainly.com/question/10537829
#learnwithBrainly
Answer:
There is absolutely No relationship between the weight of an object (which is constant) and the frictional force. If a block is sliding on a surface, that surface will be exerting a force on the block. That force can be resolved into a component parallel to the surface (which we call the frictional component), and a component perpendicular to the surface (called the normal component). For many situations, we find experimentally that the frictional component is approximately proportional to the normal component. The frictional component divided by the normal component is defined to be a quantity called the coefficient of kinetic or sliding friction. The coefficient of kinetic friction obviously depends on the nature of the surfaces involved. The normal component on an object can be decreased if you pull in the direction of the normal component (the weight does not change). However pulling this way on the object not only decreases the normal component, but it also decreases the frictional component since they are proportional. This is why it is easier to slide something if you pull up on it while you push it. If you push down, the normal and frictional components increase so it is harder to slide the object. The weight of an object is the downward force exerted by Earth’s gravity on that object, and it does not change no matter how you push or pull on the object.
