<u>Answer:</u> The time taken by jet plane to reach Los Angeles from Chicago is 3.5 hours
<u>Explanation:</u>
Speed is defined as the rate at which an object moves with respect to time.
To calculate the time taken for the given speed, we use the equation:
where,
s = speed of the jet plane = 800 km/hr
d = distance traveled = 2800 km
t = time taken by jet plane = ?
Putting values in above equation, we get:
Hence, the time taken by jet plane to reach Los Angeles from Chicago is 3.5 hours
Answer:
The mass of 
in the container is 2.074 gram
Explanation:
Given:
Volume of 
lit
Equilibrium constant 
The reaction in which is produced
⇄ 
Here equal moles of and 
is formed.
From the formula of equilibrium constant,
M
Above value shows,
So in 2 L no. moles of = 
moles.
So mass of 0.122 mole of is = 
g
Therefore, the mass of in the container is 2.074 gram
They are the outer layer of the electron layers.
Democritus was the first to propose the idea of the atom. He said the atom was just this tiny, solid sphere. However, he used no scientific evidence to support his claim, so a guy named John Dalton did some experimenting and basically backed up Democritus' claim with evidence. Then, a guy named J.J. Thompson came along and said the atom was not solid and that is consisted of tiny negatively charged particles(electrons) and he came up with the Plum Pudding model which is just a tiny sphere with a punch of random scattered dots in it. After that, Ernest Rutherford did experiments and found that the tiny sphere is made up of mostly empty space with a tiny, dense, positively charged sphere inside of it, and the negatively charged particles just randomly float around it. Neils Bohr then said that the electrons take specific, circular, evenly spaced paths. Then, finally, we come to the Quantum Mechanical Model which is the one accepted today. This model basically vetos Bohr's idea and has a nucleus inside of an electron cloud, which is where the electrons are found.
Answer:The process of science is iterative.
Science circles back on itself so that useful ideas are built upon and used to learn even more about the natural world. This often means that successive investigations of a topic lead back to the same question, but at deeper and deeper levels. Let's begin with the basic question of how biological inheritance works. In the mid-1800s, Gregor Mendel showed that inheritance is particulate — that information is passed along in discrete packets that cannot be diluted. In the early 1900s, Walter Sutton and Theodor Boveri (among others) helped show that those particles of inheritance, today known as genes, were located on chromosomes. Experiments by Frederick Griffith, Oswald Avery, and many others soon elaborated on this understanding by showing that it was the DNA in chromosomes which carries genetic information. And then in 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick, again aided by the work of many others, provided an even more detailed understanding of inheritance by outlining the molecular structure of DNA. Still later in the 1960s, Marshall Nirenberg, Heinrich Matthaei, and others built upon this work to unravel the molecular code that allows DNA to encode proteins. And it doesn't stop there. Biologists have continued to deepen and extend our understanding of genes, how they are controlled, how patterns of control themselves are inherited, and how they produce the physical traits that pass from generation to generation. The process of science is not predetermined.
Any point in the process leads to many possible next steps, and where that next step leads could be a surprise. For example, instead of leading to a conclusion about tectonic movement, testing an idea about plate tectonics could lead to an observation of an unexpected rock layer. And that rock layer could trigger an interest in marine extinctions, which could spark a question about the dinosaur extinction — which might take the investigator off in an entirely new direction. At first this process might seem overwhelming. Even within the scope of a single investigation, science may involve many different people engaged in all sorts of different activities in different orders and at different points in time — it is simply much more dynamic, flexible, unpredictable, and rich than many textbooks represent it as. But don't panic! The scientific process may be complex, but the details are less important than the big picture …
