<span>Easy, take the top off your Thermos bottle filled with hot coffee. Assuming perfect insulation, that hot coffee is isolated from the environment; but when the top is opened the heat can now escape to that environment.
Thank you for posting your question here at brainly. I hope the answer will help you. Feel free to ask more questions here.
</span>
Answer:
When we double the angular velocity the maximum acceleration
will changes by a factor of 4.
Explanation:
Given the angular frequency
of the simple harmonic oscillator is doubled.
We need to find the change in the maximum acceleration of the oscillator.

Now, according to the problem, the angular frequency
got doubled.
Let us plug
. Then the maximum acceleration will be 



We can see, when we double the angular velocity the maximum acceleration will changes by a factor of 4.
If the wavelength<span> is given, the energy can be determined by first using the wave equation (c = λ × ν) to </span>find<span> the frequency, then using Planck's equation to </span>calculate<span> energy. Use the equations above to answer the following questions. 1. Ultraviolet radiation has a frequency of 6.8 × 1015 1/s.</span>
Answer:
D
Explanation:
<em>The most suitable testable question. in this case, would be that 'are there more home runs during the more humid months of the summer?'</em>
Since the aim of the investigation is to find the relationship between humidity and the number of home runs, measuring the number of home runs during the more humid months in the summer and comparing the data to the number of home runs during the less humid months in the same summer would provide the answer.
<u>Only option D raises a valid question that is relevant to the aim of the investigation.</u>
I was about to say: because people generally get comfortable with
what they think they know, and don't like the discomfort of being told
that they have to change something they're comfortable with.
But then I thought about it a little bit more, and I have a different answer.
"Society" might initially reject a new scientific theory, because 'society'
is totally unequipped to render judgement of any kind regarding any
development in Science.
First of all, 'Society' is a thing that's made of a bunch of people, so it's
inherently unequipped to deal with scientific news. Anything that 'Society'
decides has a lot of the mob psychology in it, and a public opinion poll or
a popularity contest are terrible ways to evaluate a scientific discovery.
Second, let's face it. The main ingredient that comprises 'Society' ... people ...
are generally uneducated, unknowledgeable, unqualified, and clueless in the
substance, the history, and the methods of scientific inquiry and reporting.
There may be very good reasons that some particular a new scientific theory
should be rejected, or at least seriously questioned. But believe me, 'Society'
doesn't have them.
That's pretty much why.