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.
Answer:
acceleration of person = 9.77 m/s²
Explanation:
given data
latitude = 40 degree
to find out
Calculate the acceleration of a person
solution
we know that here 40 degree = 0.698 rad
so
acceleration of person = g - ω²R ...............1
and 1 rotation complete in 24 hours = 360 degree
here g is 9.81
so we know Earth angular speed ω = 7.27 ×
rad/s and R is earth radius that is 6.37 ×
m
so
put here value in equation 1 we get
acceleration of person = g - ω²R
acceleration of person = 9.81 - (7.27 ×
)² × 6.37 ×
acceleration of person = 9.77 m/s²
Answer:
<h2>false</h2>
Explanation:
because Oxalic acid is present in spinach
<h2>MARK ME AS BRAINLIST</h2>
Replacement teeth were made even back then out of primitive materials, and pig hair was used like floss