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.
Differences in land elevation result in rainfall runoff, and allow some of the original solar energy to be captured as hydro-electric power (Figure 1). Hydro power is currently the world's largest renewable source of electricity, accounting for 6% of worldwide energy supply or about 15% of the world's electricity.
hope this helps
mark brainliest :)
Dark matter may explain <span>unexpected orbital velocities of stars in galaxies.</span>
Answer:
Weight of the car, normal force, drag force
Explanation:
The forces acting on the car are:
- The normal force which acts perpendicularly to the downhill plane
- The weight of the car which acts vertically downwards
- The drag force due to air resistance which acts in opposition to the motion of the car
Friction is ignored, so the force due to friction is assumed negligible
