Having too much matter causes the star to explode, resulting in a supernova. As the star runs out of nuclear fuel, some of its mass flows into its core. Eventually, the core is so heavy that it cannot withstand its own gravitational force. The core collapses, which results in the giant explosion of a supernova
Often on television shows and in articles I see it mentioned that it'd always be bad to blow up an asteroid or comet because then the energy would just be spread out and cause even more damage.
According to some estimates I've seen around 100 tons (or more) of meteoroids hit the Earth each day. If all of this were combined together into a single asteroid, it could destroy an entire, large city.
Given that alone, it makes it seem to me that it be more logical to take the chance and blow up an asteroid and thereby trim its weight down, causing a lot more to be more easily burnt up on entry, so that when it did hit, it would cause less damage.
Is this logical at all? If my science/math/physics is incorrect, I want to understand why having more burn up by spreading out is worse compared to having it more concentrated and vastly more dangerous.
Answer:
B
Explanation:
About 54O mil years ago the Camberian Explosion happened and in Camberian period major animal phyla appear according to fossil records.
Prokaryotic cells do not contain a nucleus or any other membrane-bound organelle. Eukaryotic cells contain membrane-bound organelles, including a nucleus. So I belive the answer is A :P Hope it helps
Answer:
The correct answer is - option D.
Explanation:
Patent is the authority or licence that is provide by the government to protect the rights of an inventor's invent and prevent others to making, creating, selling and using without the permission of the inventor.
It is used to provide property rights to a specific inventor for his discoveries and inventions. Patent can be for the limited time so one can not copy for the limited period of time or complete patent.
Thus, the correct answer is option D.