Short Answer:
buoyancy
Long answer:
An object submerged in water displaces water according to how much it weighs. In fact, the water will push upward against the object with a force equal to the weight of the water it displaces. For example, a bowling ball and a beach ball that are the same size will have the same volume. The bowling ball, however, is more massive and thus denser than the beach ball. In both cases, the water pushes up against the ball with a force equal to the weight of water it displaced. In the case of the bowling ball, it weighs more than the amount of water it displaced, so it sinks. The beach ball, however, displaces very little water and the air inside it is much lighter than the weight of the water it displaced, so it floats.When lifting something underwater, you have the help of water pushing the object upwards along with your own strength, which is why it's easier to pick up things underwater than on land.
Source:
https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/why-is-it-easier-to-lift-someone-in-water-than-on-land
Answer: The brightness of our if betelgeuse were to explode as as a supernova would by getting the ratio betelgeuse to sirius. Which would then be:
Apparent brightness of Betelgeuse
÷ Apparent brightness of Sirius=
6.9×10^4 Lsun.
The correct statements are:
- <em>Resources are owned by the government;</em>
The command economies are typical for the socialist/communist countries. In this type of economy, the government controls everything, the resources of the country, the production facilities, trade is organized by the government officials, the planning for production of when, how much, and how, is done by government officials... Unfortunately for the people living in this types of countries, this type of economy very often led to big problems, especially in the food supply department.
- <em>Little changes from generation to generation;</em>
This can be seen as trait of both command and traditional economy. In the command economy there are little to no changes as the time passes, so from one generation to another, the changes will either be lacking, or they will be so minor that they will be unnoticeable.
<span>I think the answer is C. militarism or build up of military</span>
Considering how large of a GDP the US have, I would agree with such a move. There's several reasons why I would agree on such a move. One of them is of course the well being of the nature, as it is crucial for the survival of every living organism, including the humans. Reforestation will bring in lot of benefits that will gradually return the investment. For starters, the air quality will improve, and by doing so, the health problems among the people will reduce significantly, thus much less will be spent on healthcare. Part of the new forests can be fruit forests, which will be an enormous reserve of organic food without having to use any labor or effort in production. Also, by establishing forests, whole ecosystems will get back on the scene, so lot of useful plants can be harvested from the forests, such as herbs and mushrooms. If the US makes a deal so that it can use certain part of the benefits from the forests until it gets its enormous investment, it will be a win-win situation for everyone. In order to have the budget for the global reforestation, it would be the best to cut down on the budget for development of weapon of mass destruction and the budget for war.
