The two reasons Democritus’ ideas about the atom were NOT accepted are atoms are indestructible and they move in infinite space.
<h3>
What is atom?</h3>
An atom is the smallest unit of ordinary matter that forms a chemical element.
<h3>
Democritus’ ideas about atom</h3>
Democritus believed that atoms were uniform, solid, hard, incompressible, and indestructible and that they moved in infinite numbers through empty space until stopped.
Differences in atomic shape and size determined the various properties of matter.
Thus, the two reasons Democritus’ ideas about the atom were NOT accepted are atoms are indestructible and they move in infinite space.
Learn more about atoms here: brainly.com/question/6258301
#SPJ1
Answer:
0.501 L
Explanation:
To solve this problem we will use Boyle,s Law. According to this law "The volume of given amount of gas is inversely proportional to applied pressure at constant temperature".
V∝ 1/P
V= K/P
VP=K
Here the K is proportionality constant.
so,
P1V1 = P2V2
P= pressure
V= volume
Given data:
P1= 1 atm
V1= 461 mL
P2= 0.92 atm
V2= ? (L)
To solve this problem we have to convert the mL into L first.
1 L = 1000 mL
461/1000= 0.461 L
Now we will put the values in the equation,
P1V1 = P2V2
V2= P1V1/ P2
V2= 1 atm × 0.461 L / 0.92 atm
V2= 0.501 L
Plate tectonics is a scientific theory that describes the large-scale motion of Earth's lithosphere. Plates at our planet’s surface move because of the intense heat in the Earth’s core that causes molten rock in the mantle layer to move.
Here's a link if you need more help: http://www.livescience.com/37706-what-is-plate-tectonics.html
Answer:
The advantage of the compound light microscope over the dissecting microscope is the magnification power of the telescope. Compound light microscope magnifies from 40x up to 1,000x while dissecting microscope magnifies up to 40 x only. In this regard, more magnification power is advantageous to view smaller objects.
Answer:
A. is not
B. incorrect
C. identify substances that have the measured molecular mass
Explanation:
Since in the question it is mentioned that the Christy who is a forensic scientist and she gave a white powder and identify whether it is a sugar or not when she tested she seen that the molecular mass is different as compared with the sugar
So here it can be concluded that the white powder does not show a sugar that means it is not a sugar so automatically the hypothesis of Christy is wrong. And, the next step is to track the substance that shows the molecular mass i.e. measured
